








^ 



av 



v 










*°* 




«3* 4*& 



jP-Tj. 



















v<<t v • 











^ 












:. ° 



>°V 














ELEMENTS \ OF INSTRUCTION 

\ 

CONCERNIN« 

FOR THE USE OF YOUNG PERSONS. 



CHIEFLY FROM THE FIFTH EDITION OF 

"THEOPHILUS ANGLICANUS." 

BY 

CHR. WORDSWORTH, D. D., 

CANON OF WESTMINSTER ; 
LATE HEAD MASTER OF HARROW SCHOOL. 



EDITED AND ENLARGED 

BY HUGH DAVEY EVANS. 






PHILADELPHIA: 

H. HOOKER, S. W. CORNER OF CHESTNUT AND EIGHTH STREETS. 



1851. ;, 




Entered, according to Aet of Congress, in the year one thousand eight hundred 
and fifty-one, by 

H. HOOKER, 

In the Clerk's Ofl&ce of the District Court of the United States, in and for the 
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 



CONTENTS. 



PART I. 



ON THE CHURCH. 



CHAP. PAGE 

I. On the Name and Attributes of the Church 1 

II. On the Attributes of the Church as visible and 

militant, and as invisible and triumphant 5 

III. On the Dignity and Glory of the Church 16 

IV. On Salvation only in the Church 17 

V. On Errors in the Church 23 

VI. On Privileges in the Church : Word of God. — The 

Church its Witness and Keeper 39 

VII. On Privileges in the Church : Right Interpretation 

of the Word of God 45 

VIII. On Privileges in the Church : Due Administration 

of the Sacraments by a lawful Ministry 56 

IX. On the Three Orders of Ministers in the Church 62 

X. Bishops ; Divine Institution of Episcopacy 64 

XI. Functions of Bishops 71 

XII. Of Bishops as Diocesans, Metropolitans, and Pa- 
triarchs . 76 

XIII. On Privileges in the Church: Discipline — Power 

of the Keys 81 

XIV. On Privileges in the Church: Absolution 85 

XV. On Privileges in the Church: Sacerdotal Interces- 
sion and Benediction 91 

XVI. On Privileges in the Church: Set Forms of Public 

Prayer-. 98 

(iii) 



IV 



CONTENTS. 



PART II. 

ON THE ANGLICAN BRANCH OF THE CATHOLIC OR UNIVERSAL 
CHURCH. 
CHAP. PAGE 

I. The Church of England : its Origin 101 

II. The Church of England independent of Rome : 

Period before the Arrival of St. Augustine 104 

III. The Church of England independent of Rome : 

Mission of St. Augustine 108 

IV. The Church of England independent of Rome : 

Period between the Mission of St. Augustine and 

the Reformation 114 

V. The Reformation in England a removal of what 

was new, and a restoration of what was old .... 120 
VI. On the uninterrupted Succession of Holy Orders 

in the Church of England 130 

VII. The Church of England did not separate herself 

from the Church of Rome 135 

VIII. The Church of England has never been separate 

from the Catholic or Universal Church 141 

VIII. Bis. A Supplementary Chapter on Orders, Mis- 
sion, and Jurisdiction. By the American 

Editor 144 

IX. The Bishop of Rome has no supremacy, spiritual 

or temporal, in these realms 168 

PART III. 

BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 

THE HISTORY, CONSTITUTION, AND CIVIL RELATIONS OF THE 
AMERICAN CHURCH. 



I. Of the Origin and Early History of the American 

Church 180 



CONTENTS. V 

CHAP. PAGfl 

II. On the History of the Organization of the Ameri- 
can Church. . . ^ 192 

III. Of the Orders, Mission, and Jurisdiction of the 

American Bishops 211 

IV. Of the Internal Constitution of the American 

Church 234 

V. Of the Relations of Church and State 237 

VI. A Supplementary Chapter on the Relations of the 

Church of England to the State 250 

PART IV. 

RITES AND CEREMONIES OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 

I. On the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of 

England 261 

II. Objections considered 264 

Index 271 



ADVERTISEMENT 

OF THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 



The reader will please observe, that the whole of the 
Third Part, and of the long Chapter, On Orders, Mission, 
and Jurisdiction, are the work of the American Editor. 
So also are all the questions throughout the book which 
are numbered with Roman numeral letters, with the 
answers to them. It is proper to observe, that the autho- 
rities, on which the statements in this volume are made, 
are adduced in the classical edition of the original work. 

(vi) 



ELEMENTS OF INSTRUCTION 

CONCERNING 



PART I. 
©n 1 1) e Or btrrr I). 

CHAPTER I. 

ON TBPE NAME AND ATTRIBUTES OF THE 
CHURCH. 

(fit. 1. What is the etymology and mean- Chap. 
ing of the English word Church ? I. 

Qt. It is derived from the Greek word^— ^r— ' 
Kvptax^, feminine adjective, from Kvpco*, the ^y^ 5 ' 
Lord ; and it means Kvpiaxri oixU, or the f*^ m 15 
Lord's House. 

(£l. 2. Is there not another word, the same 
both in Greek and Latin, by which Church 
is expressed? 

21. Yes, Ecclesia. 

(fit. 3. Whence is this word derived? 

Qi. From the Greek ix, forth, and *aai», 
to call. 

(fit. 4. How is this word modified in living 
European languages ? 

(i) 




2 THE NAME AND ATTRIBUTES 

21. In Italian it has become Ohiesa ; in 
French, JEglise ; and in Spanish, Iglesa. 

(St. 5. What did the word JEcclesia origin- 
ally mean ? 

3L A Public Assembly ; and it was spe- 
cially applied to designate the Popular As- 
sembly at Athens, to which all free citizens 
were convoked, and which was summoned by 
Presidents (rtpvtdveis), each of whom (as **&<*.- 
<ediris) held in rotation the keys of the Civic 
Treasury and Archives. and the State Seal. 

(£t. 6, What do you infer from the two 
words, Kvpiaxrj and Exx^ala, with respect to, 
the character of the Church ? 

21, That it is the Lord's House, or Com- 
mon Assembly of His People, presided over 
by Persons intrusted with certain powers, 
and to whom" men are convoked as the Athe- 
nians were to their JEcclesia. 

(£t. 7. But is not the Christian Church 
something more than an Assembly f 

21. Yes, the Church is indeed an Assem- 
bly ', it being convoked; but it is a perma- 
nent Society, in that having been convoked 
it never will be dissolved. 

(St. 8. And this Assembly or Society is 
presented to us in Holy Scripture under what 
form? 

21. As consisting of believing and baptized 

persons, continuing " steadfastly in the Apos- 

Acts a. 4i- ties' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking 

47. xx. 7. o £ k rea( j an( j j n prayers;" and who were 

Acts ii. 47. thus reputed to be Members of the same 
^S.8. Church, and to which were added (<* <jq£o/*£vo<<) 
such as were being saved. 



OF THE CHURCH, 3 

(El. 9. What are the designations by which Chap. 
the Church is described in the Apostles' and^ *• 
Constantinopolitan Creeds ? 

&. It is called One, Holy, Catholic, 
and Apostolic {^la, ayux, xaQouxrj, 'a^og* oxt,*»J). 

(EL. 10. How is the Church One, or United? 

21. Inasmuch as all its members have one Ephes. iy. 6. 
God and Father ; and are united as sheep of JSm. |ii 16 g. 
one fold, under one Shepherd, and as mem-^ Cor,xii - 12 - 
bers, under Christ their Head, of one Body, i cor. *i. 3. 
into which they are all baptized in one Spi-icor!x.i7.' 
rit ; and are all partakers of one Bread and Jude 3 * 
of one Cup in the Holy Eucharist ; have all 
one Faith, and one Hope of their calling ; 
are of one heart and one soul, loving each 
other as Brethren, and keeping the unity coi. m. i&- 
of the Spirit in the bond of peace ; walking A ^* iv# 32 . 
by the same rule, and minding the same^"-^ 
thing; united by the same Apostolic govern- pwil ml ie. 
ment, discipline, and worship ; and all living Ac ^ li; 41 ~ 
with this one aim, that they may with one Ron1, XT> 6# 
mind and one mouth glorify God. 

(EL. 11. How is the Church Holt ? 

21. In respect to its Head, Christ ; of its i Pet. i. 15, 
Holy Calling ; of its Holy Baptism, wherein 2 6 Tim. i. &. 
we are created anew after God in righteous- gEmA 
ness and true holiness; of the Holy Offices iPet.i. i. 
performed in it ; of the Holiness of Life re- 
quired from its members ; of the " Inheri- 
tance, Holy and undefiled," which God has 
promised to them. 

(EL. 12. What is the derivation and mean- 
ing of the term Catholic ? 

21. Catholic is from the Greek adjective 




4 THE NAME AND ATTRIBUTES, ETC. 

xaOo'kixos, universal, and is derived from the 
adverb xa96%ov, throughout, which is from 
the preposition xata, according to, and 6a,o*, 
whole ; and Catholic means diffused through' 
out the whole, or universal. 

(Si. 13. How is the Church thus Catho- 
lic or Universal ? 
^xid^lsi.' ^ -"- n aspect of time, as enduring through- 
out all ages, from the beginning till the end 
of the world. In respect of place, as not 
Mark xvi. limited, like the Jewish Church, to one Peo- 
iike xxiv. pic, but as comprehending those of all Na- 
ReV. v. 9. tions who are in the main points of religion 
one and the same. In respect of Faith and 
Practice, as teaching all truth, and as re- 
quiring holiness from all ; and as ministering, 
by God's appointment, all His means of spi- 
ritual Gcrace. 

(fit. 14. Are the members of way particu- 
lar or national Church (for example, of 
Italy, Greece, France, England, &c.) rightly 
called Catholics ? 

21. Yes ; being Members of the Uni- 
versal Church of Christ, they are Catholics, 
generally ; or, more particularly, Italian 
Catholics, Greek Catholics, French Catholics, 
and English or Anglo-Catholics. 

(fit. 15. And what thence do you conclude 
concerning the claim often preferred by the 
Church of Rome to be called the Catholic 
Church? 

21. The Church of Rome is a part of the 
Catholic Church, as the other Churches be- 
fore mentioned are ; but neither the Church 



THE CHURCH AS VISIBLE, ETC. 5 

of Rome, nor the Church of England, nor 
the Greek Church, nor any other particular 
Church, is the Catholic or Universal Church, 
any more than a Branch is a Tree, or a 
Hand is the whole Body. 

d. 16. How is the Church Apostolical ? 

21. As built on the foundation of the 
Apostles, Jesus Christ Himself being the 
Chief Corner Stone; as continuing stead- 
fastly in the doctrine of the Apostles, and 
in communion with them and their lawful 
successors. * 




CHAPTER II. 



ON THE ATTRIBUTES OF THE CHURCH AS VISI- 
BLE AND MILITANT, AND AS INVISIBLE AND 
TRIUMPHANT. 

(fil. 1. How did you become a Member of 
this One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic 
Church ? 

2i. By Baptism with water, in the name Acts yiii.^. 
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 19? 
Holy Ghost. 

<2H. 2. Are all, who have been duly bap- 
tized, to be considered as continuing thence- 
forward in a state of Grace, and in the way 
to Salvation? 

1* 




Eph. iv. 30. 



6 THE CHURCH AS VISIBLE 

21. No. They were placed at Baptism in 
a state of Grace, and in the way to Salva- 
tion; but Baptism did not destroy their free 
2TiiiVi.6? will. A man may quench the Spirit, and 
19. ess ' v * reject the good counsel of God towards him- 

Lukevii.30. gel f ( d ;£ avt6v y 

(El. 3. You have before said, (p. 4,) that 
the Church is Holy; may there, then, be evil 
men in the Church ? 
Ro ? 1 .-. i ^ 6 ' 21. Yes. " All are not Israel who are of 
anda - 28 - Israel." 

<JH. 4. Will this state of things continue 
to the end of the world ? 

21. Yes. " On earth the evil will ever be 
mingled with the good." 

<2H. 5. How do you show this ? 

21. From the figures and parables by 
which the Church is described in Holy Scrip- 
ture. 

C&. 6. Mention some of these. 

21. The Church is the Ark, in which were 
clean and unclean animals; the Holy City, 
in which Jebusites remained mixed with God's 
faithful people ; the Apostolic Company, in 
which was Judas, as well as Peter, James, 
and John. 

(HI. 7. You thence infer that a Church does 
not cease to be a Church by reason of the 
bad lives of some of its Members ? 

21. I do. St. Paul recognizes the Chris- 
tian Society at Corinth to be ~a Church, al- 
though it contained within it, as he himself 
says, contentious persons, carnal, envious, 
striving, fornicators, litigious, insubordinate, 



AND AS INVISIBLE. 7 

sceptics concerning the Resurrection ; and Chap. 
he calls the Galatians a Church, though some "■ 
of their number had relapsed into Judiastical 
opinions. So the Church of Pergamus con- ? a \l' e - 
tained Nicolaitans, that of Thyatira a Jeze- ^ ev .- .."• * 5 - 
bel ; and that of Laodicea was lukewarm ; 
yet they were still Churches. 

(El. 8. You mentioned Scripture Parables ; 
how then does this appear from any of them ? 

SI. Our Blessed Lord describes the Church Matt. xm. 
under the similitude of a Field in which Wheat 1°; v . 2 . 
and Tares (i. e., £t?cma, which closely re- 
semble the wheat) remain growing together Matt. iii. 12. 
until the Harvest. The Church is the Thresh- & att xxv ' 
ing-floor, in which lie Grains and Chaff mixed ^^^ 19, 
together (the chaff often parting and ob- Matt. xxa. 
scuring the grain) ; a Fold, with both Sheep joimxv.i. 
and Goats ; a Net, in which are inclosed Fish stAug ."hi 
of every kind, both good and bad; aMar-^ v |^ 
riage Feast, with Guests both bad and good ; catena in 
a Vine, with fruitful and unfruitful branches ; 1838, ^175, 
St. Peter's Sheet let down from heaven, con- 17T * 
taining clean and unclean beasts ; a great 
House, in which are vessels not only of gold 
and silver, but also of wood, some to honour, 
and some to dishonour. 

<£t. 9. What are the moral and religious 
lessons to be learnt from this mixed and im- 
perfect state of things ? 

%. We are to consider it as an exercise 
of our Faith. The present mixture ought to 
make us look forward to the time of final se- 
paration. The Field ought to remind us of 
the Harvest. We ought to carry our thoughts 




8 THE CHURCH AS VISIBLE 

from the earthly Threshing-floor to the 
; heavenly G-arner ; from the present union 
of the Sheep and Goats to their future seve- 
rance; from the Net, we should look to the 
Shore to which it is to be one day drawn. 
This state of things is also to teach us other 
lessons, with respect to our fellow-men. 

(Si. 10. What are these ? 
1 Kings xix. 3L ^ e are to learn from it the duties of 
R*m xi 4 bearing and forbearing ; of remembering, 
that while there are many bad men in the 
Church, who do appear, there are many good 
ones who are not known to men as such ; 
of taking care, that while we communicate 
with sinful men, we do not communicate 
with them in any sin; of not disparaging or 
condemning a Church, much less of separat- 
ing ourselves from it, for the errors or vices 
of some of its members, but of endeavouring 
to promote its general welfare, and the re- 
pentance and amendment of particular mem- 
bers, by our prayers and our example. 

(£l. 11. By what name is the Church 
called, in this condition upon earth? 

21. It is called the Visible Church. 

OH. 12. Why is it so called ? 

21. Because it is a visible " Congregation 
of faithful" or believing persons, " in which 
the pure Word of God is preached, and the 
Sacraments are duly administered according 
to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that 
of necessity are requisite to the same," and 
which enjoys the right use of Ecclesiastical 
Discipline. 




• AND AS INVISIBLE. 

(fli. 13. For any other reason ? 

Qt. Yes, as distinguished from 
visible Church. 

(&. 14. What do you mean by 
visible Church? 

Qt. I mean the family of God, both in |^ n x ^ In- 
earth and heaven; the city of the living xix.V. 
God ; the Spouse of Christ, without spot orlom.xiTi. 
wrinkle ; the mystical Body of Christ, whose f 6 ph ' iv ' n ~ 
members are known to God, and to God S°i "• *?:, 

. , , 7 . . John x. 14. 

alone, and whose names are written m hea- 2 Tim. a. 19. 

Luke x. 20. 

ven. 

(El. 15. You speak of the Visible and In- 
visible Church ; are there then two churches ? 

Qt. No : these two terms describe not two 
Churches, but the one Church considered in 
two different states. The Church is visible, 
in that it contains persons existing only on 
earth, and known to men by certain visible 
tokens : it is invisible, in that it consists of 
persons both in heaven and earth, from the 
beginning to the end of the world, known to 
God, but not clearly distinguishable by men. John x 15< 
The Church is visible as far only as it is 27. 
seen by men ; it is invisible, as it is known 2 TinL n. 19. 
by God. The former contains both bad and^^if" 
good ; the latter consists of good only. In 
the former are wheat and chaff, wheat and 
tares, mixed together; in the latter, wheat 
alone. The one is the Church of the Called, 
the other of the Elect only. 

(El. xvi. Does the Invisible Church, then, 
consist only of those who will be finally 
saved ? 




10 THE CHURCH AS VISIBLE 

91. It consists of all who are at present in 
; a state of salvation, from which, however, 
all on earth may, and some will, fall. 

(fll. xvii. To what Church belong those ever- 
lasting promises of love, mercy, and blessed- 
ness? 

21. To the Invisible. 

<JH. xviii. What Church doth the duties 
which are enjoined on the Church concern? 

21. The Visible, for it is only in this life 
that the duties so enjoined can be performed. 

©. xix. To what Church do the promises 
that Christ will be with her even unto the 
end of the world, and that the gates of Hell 
shall not prevail against her, belong ? 

&. To the Visible ; for Christ will be with 
the Invisible Church after the end of the 
world ; and it is only in this world that we can 
conceive of the gates of Hell prevailing, since 
nothing of Hell can enter into Heaven. 

tfH. xx. Is it then the duty of Christians 
to be in communion with the Visible Church ? 
John xy. 4, <2V. Yes; for our Blessed Saviour saith; 
"Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch 
cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in 
the vine ; no more can ye, except ye abide in 
Me, I am the vine, ye are the branches : he 
that abideth in Me, and I in him, the same 
bringeth forth much fruit ; for without Me ye 
can do nothing. If a man abide not in Me, 
he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered ; 
and men gather them, and cast them into the 
fire, and they are burned.' ' And again; — 
21, 22*23.' ' " Neither pray I for these alone, but for them 



AND AS INVISIBLE. 11 

also which shall believe on Me through their Chap. 
word ; that they all may be one ; as Thou, v **• 
Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they^^^ - *"^ 
also may be one in Us ; that the world may 
believe that Thou hast sent Me. And the 
glory which Thou givest Me I have given 
them ; that they may be -one, as We are one. 
I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may 
be made perfect in one ; and that the world 
may know that Thou hast sent Me, and hast 
loved them as Thou hast loved Me." 

(&. xxi. How do we become members of 
the Visible Church ? 

21. By Baptism, wherein we are made 
members of Christ, children of God, and in- 
heritors of the Kingdom of Heaven ; accord- 
ing to the words of our Lord Jesus Christ ; 
" Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a John m. 6. 
man be born of water and of the Spirit he 
cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." 

(St. xxii. How do we enter into the In- 
visible Church ? 

21. By spiritual regeneration, which in- 
cludes remission of sins and the gift of the 
Holy Ghost, and which is conferred in Bap- 
tism upon all infants, and upon all such adults 
as truly repent and come to God in that 
Holy Sacrament by faith ; according to the 
same words of our Blessed Lord; " Except John m.5. 
a man be born of water and the Spirit he 
cannot enter into the Kingdom of God," and 
also, according to his other words ; " He that Markxvi.1. 
believeth and is baptized shall be saved." 

(&. xxiii. How can we be separated from 
the Visible Church ? 




12 THE CHURCH AS VISIBLE 

21. By the Act of the Church in excom- 
munication, or by our own act, in schism, 
heresy, or apostacy. 

<*H. xxiv. What is Excommunication ? 

21. It is a judgment of the Church, where- 
by an offender is excluded from her com- 
munion, as St. Paul delivered Hymeneus and 
Alexander unto Satan, that they might learn 
not to blaspheme. It rests on the authority 
of our Blessed Saviour, when He said to His 
johnxx.23. Apostles, " Whosesoever sins ye remit they 
are remitted unto them, and whosesoever 
sins ye retain they are retained.' ' 

<fii. xxv. Does excommunication finally and 
totally sever from the Visible Church ? 

21. No : While it continues, it shuts out 
from the Communion of the Visible Church ; 
but it cannot totally sever from the Church 
itself into which the man was received by the 
" One Baptism for the remission of sins." It 
proceeds on the judgment of the Church, that 
the Holy Spirit has been withdrawn from 
the sinner ; it is therefore a very solemn and 
fearful act ; but inasmuch as that judgment is 
not infallible, if it should afterwards appear 
by the continuing faith, and renewed repent- 
ance of the excommunicate, that the Holy 
Spirit has not been withdrawn from him, he 
may be again received into communion, and 
that without a new Baptism ; which clearly 
shows that he has never ceased to be a mem- 
ber of the Church. 

GH. xxvi. What are the acts of the indi- 
vidual, whereby he may separate himself from 
the Visible Church ? 



AND AS INVISIBLE. 13 

31. There are three such acts ; schism, 
which is making a division in the Body, by an 
unlawful refusal to hold communion with the 
Church, through that branch of *it, to which, 
in the course of God's Providence, we pro- 
perly belong ; heresy, which is the rejection 
of any article of the Christian faith ; apos- 
tacy, which is the total rejection of the Chris- 
tian religion. 

(El. xxvii. Do these things separate totally 
and finally from the Visible Church ? 

21. No ; for they are at most but lawful 
causes of excommunication, which would 
justify the Church in proceeding to that sen- 
tence. They cannot, therefore, produce any 
greater effect than the sentence itself. More- 
over, it is manifest that the bond of union 
between heretics and schismatics and the 
Church is not completely broken, for that 
bond consists in a common faith and com- 
munion with one Body. Schismatics, as such, 
only sever the latter ; heretics as such, only 
the former, and that only partially, so far as 
it consists in those articles of faith which they 
deny. Apostates are in a much worse condi- 
tion than either ; but still, if God shall give 
them the grace of repentance, it is evidence 
that He hath not totally cast them off; they 
may therefore be restored to the Church on 
manifesting that repentance. 

(El. xxviii. How can we be separated from 
the Invisible Church ? 

01. By the act of God in withdrawing his 
Holy Spirit from us as a punishment of our 
sins. 2 





14 THE CHURCH AS VISIBLE 

(&. xxix. Does this separate us totally and 
finally from the Invisible Church ? 

2i. Yes,^t does so, and so condemns us to 
Eternal death, provided the withdrawal be 
total. But we are not to decide in any par- 
ticular case that this hath been done ; for 
that matter relates to the secret counsel of 
God, and experience has shown that the 
grace of repentance has been given to very 
bad men. 

(fll. 30. By what other name is the Church 
on earth known ? 
ifu 1 10 ' ^- I* i s sometimes called the Church Mi- 
net>. xii. 22. litant, as existing in a State of Warfare 
2gJ\&9. ' against evil, and as distinguished from what 
it will be in its future condition as Trium- 
phant or Q-lorified. 

(fii. 31. Is there any one single Visible 

Head of the Church on earth ? 

coi. ii. 10^ &. No. Christ is the Head of all Prin- 

p e8 ' L ' cipality and Power ; He is over all things to 

the Church, which is His Spouse, and has no 

other Head or Husband but Christ. He only 

johniii.29. " that hath the Bride is the Bridegroom. " 

i'petv.4. He is the Chief Pastor. If Christ had ap- 

Mattxxi1,9 ' pointed any one Visible Head over His 

Church, it is unaccountable that we should 

find nothing in Scripture concerning our own 

duty to the Supreme Head, where so much 

is said of our duty to temporal governors, 

and to our spiritual Guides. But Christ 

never appointed any one Visible Head of 

the Catholic Church, any more than He did 

One Visible Monarch of the whole world; 



AND AS INVISIBLE. 15 

nor did the Christian Church ever hear of 
any supremacy over itself in one man, for 
six hundred years from the birth of Christ ; 
and when that supremacy began- to be as- 
serted, it brought with it great and innume- 
rable calamities. 

(JH. 32. But since the Church is always a 
Visible Society of men, united by visible to- 
kens (above, ch. 2. ans. 12,) and since every 
Society requires a governing power for its 
own preservation, what is the power which 
governs the Visible Church ? 

21. The Church, as a whole, is subject, 
under Christ, to the Laws given her in Holy 
Scripture, and to those laws which (not con- 
trary to Scripture) have been enacted by her 
for herself, and which have been generally 
received and put in use in the Church. 

(St. 33. But Laws require living Inter- 
preters and Executors : who then have this 
power in the Church ? 

21. The Bishops of the Church, convened 
in General and Provincial Councils ; each 
having free and full spiritual jurisdiction in 
that National Church, or portion of it, com- 
mitted to his charge. 

d. 34. And have the Bishops the power 
of putting these Laws in force ? 

21. Yes, in foro eonseientise, by spiritual 
censures. 




16 DIGNITY AND GLORY OF THE CHURCH. 




CHAPTER III. 



ON THE DIGNITY AND GLORY OF THE CHURCH. 

<E1. 1. By whom was the Church founded? 

01. By Jesus Christ. 

(Si. 2. For what purpose ? 

01. In order that by it might be known the 
manifold wisdom of God, and that in it, by 
the salvation of men, there might be glory 
to Him for ever. 

(Si. 3. Whence appears the dignity and 
glory of the Christian Church ? 

01. From the titles before mentioned (chap. 

I.,) which indicate her Unity, Holiness, and 

Universality : from the promises made to her 

by God, that " all the Gentiles should come 

is. ix. 3.10. to her light ;" that "Kings should be her 

i7 lx ix 2 i2 hT ' nursing Fathers, and Queens her nursing 

Ps. lxxxvii. Mothers ;" that " no weapon formed against 

her should prosper;" that "the Nation and 

Kingdom which will not serve her should 

perish and be utterly wasted;" and from 

other expressions by which she is described 

in Holy Writ, so that, therefore, the Psalmist 

says, " Glorious things are spoken of thee, 

thou City of God." 

(Si. 4. Mention some of these expressions? 
Rom. xu. 1.5. 01. She is there called the Body and 



SALVATION ONLY IN THE CHURCH. 17 

Spouse of Christ, the King's Daughter, the Chap. 
Queen at the right hand of the Messiah, the ^ ■ 
Lord's Vineyard, the Kingdom of Heaven, 
of God, of Grace, of Light; the Mountain ^iT/xtil 
of the Lord, to which all nations shall flow ; | 7 ev xix 7 
the House built on a Rock, the Pillar and xxi.*2. xxii'. 
Ground of the Truth, the City of God, the Micah. iv. 1, 
Jerusalem which is above, which is the Mo-| pll#i# 23.iv. 
ther of us all. ^ 30 

<JH. 5. But do not these latter titles refer is. xiV. 9,10. 
to the Invisible Church, purified and glorified i s a v.' i xx ' 

in liPflvPTi ? Ps. lxxx. 8. 

in neaven : Matt iv 17 

31. They do indeed specially belong to the*^ 19 .-^- 1 - 
Church, as she will be hereafter in a state of coi. t 13. 
bliss; but they appertain also to the Uni- Matt. xVi. is. 
versal Church upon Earth, for they describe irim'm. 15. 
that which she is in tendency, in endeavour, q^'^q 2 ' 
in desire, and in expectation. gpi. ii". 6." 



CHAPTER IV. 



ON SALVATION ONLY IN THE CHURCH. 

<&. 1. We have seen that the Visible 
Church is a Society, and since every Society 
has some essential characteristic by which it 
is distinguished from other Societies, what is 
that by which the Church is discerned ? 

21. The profession of the true Religion. 
2* 




18 SALVATION ONLY IN THE CHURCH. 

(El. 2. And what is the essential charac- 
teristic of this profession of the true Reli- 
gion? 

21. It is faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, 
which distinguishes the true Religion from 
m ihe false; and separates the Church from 
all other societies of men, such as Pagans, 
Jews, Mahometans, Infidels, and Apostates. 
Acts xi. 26. Hence it is that when a name was to be 
given to the members of the Church, to dis- 
tinguish them from all others, they were 
called Christians. 

(Si. 3. If we desire to be saved, is it ne- 
cessary, that, if we are able, we should be 
members of the Christian Church? 

31. It is. 

(St. 4. How does this necessity appear ? 
p s . ixvii^7. 2V. From the nature of the case. Christ 
xxxvii/32.* Himself having instituted a Society on earth, 
j<Sni?32. 9 ' i n which men are to receive the means of 
E P h. iv. n. g race an( j salvation, and having revealed no 
other way to this end, they who will not enter 
into, and continne in, this society, exclude 
themselves from participation in the privi- 
leges of the Gospel. 

(Si. 5. Does this assertion further rest on 
the express authority of any examples in 
Holy Scripture ? 

Qt. Holy Scripture presents us with many 
instances where God appointed certain means 
for men's preservation, and where all were 
destroyed who would not avail themselves of 
those means. 

(Si. 6. Mention some of these. 



Gen. vii. 23. 



SALVATION ONLY IN THE CHURCH. 19 

91. It was necessary to enter and remain Chap. 
jn the Ark (which is the type of the Church) 
for safety from the Flood ; it was necessary 
to have the door-post sprinkled with blood, ^ 
and that no one should go out of the doors, Exod. xii. 7* 

o 22 26 27 

in order to be safe from the sword of the jos.ii!i8.'i9. 
destroying Angel ; and it was necessary for 
the members of the family of Rahab to abide 
in her house, if they wished to escape death. 

(£l. 7. What do we learn from these ex- 
amples ? 

21. We are taught by analogy, that, since 
God has appointed the Church to be the dis- 
penser of the means of pardon, grace, and 
salvation to men, we cannot hope to escape 
death or inherit life, if we do not belong to 
it ; that is, if we do not enter in, and abide 
in it. 

GH. 8. But does it not appear directly from 
Holy Scripture that there is no sure way to 
salvation but in the Church ? 

21. Yes. The Church is called in Holy coi. i. is. 24. 
Scripture the Body of Christ : and while it is 
said in Scripture, that the Lord added to tlje 
Church such as were being saved Qtov$ cr<o£Ve- 
vov$,) and that Christ is the Saviour of His 
Body (tfj^ua) the Church, salvation is no where Act* u. 47. 
promised to those who are not members of 
that Body. 

(&. 9. But may there not be more than 
one Church in which salvation is offered? 

Qt. No : the Church is Una, Universa, 
and JJnica ; United, Universal, and One 
only. Christ is the Head of every man, says 




20 SALVATION ONLY IN THE CHURCH. 

St. Paul. As one Head He has but one 
spiritual Body ; and this Body, as the Apos- 
'tle tells us, is the Church, and no one can 
L?ii x 27 3 ' " hold the Head" who is not in this Body. 
S°i9.' 18 " 24 ' Further ; the Church is called in Scripture 
Ephes. iv. 12 the fulness of Him who filleth all in all. This 
Ephes. i. 23. universal fulness admits of no other fulness, 
is. lxii. 5. Again ; the Church is the Spouse of Christ, 
Ephes. v. 25 united for ever to Him, Who loved her 

—27 30 S2 

and gave Himself for her, and Who has no 
other or second Spouse besides that which 
He has sanctified and cleansed with water and 
the word, that He might present the Church 
glorious to Himself, not having spot or 
wrinkle or any such thing. She is the one 
2Cor.xi.2. Spouse of one Husband. There is one Fold 
Ephes*iv.5. and one Shepherd; " One Lord, one Faith, 
one Baptism ; and thus the Church is One 
for us men and for our Salvation. 

(Si. 10. What other evidence have we of 
this truth from Holy Scripture, as inter- 
preted by the Fathers of the Church ? 
Gen.ui.20. <£ # The church was prefigured by Eve, 
"the Mother of all living :" and, as there is 
no way of being naturally born, as men, but 
by descent from Adam and Eve, so is there 
GaL i™'!.' no way of being spiritually born as Chris- 
1 cor. xv. w-tian men, but from Christ and the Church. 
As Adam was united to Eve, so is Christ, 
"the second Adam," to His Church, and no 
Matt.xix.6. one belongs to Christ who does not belong 
to Christ's Church. " Christianus non est 
qui in Christi Ecclesifi, non est." What God 
hath joined together, let not man put asun- 
der. 



SALVATION ONLY IN THE CHURCH. 21 

<£}. 11. What was the Judgment of the pri- Chap. 
mitive Church upon this point ? IV# 

Qt. It declareth in its Creeds, that the ^~~ 
means of grace and salvation could only be tl TiL^m. ' 
obtained in the Church ; that remission of xm " Xlv * XT " 
sins could only be had there ; that the Sa- 
crament of the Eucharist, the graces of the 
Spirit, and the Word of God, pure and in- 
corrupt, could be received only in the Church ; 
that Prayer could only be offered up ac- 
ceptably to God, and that Benediction could 
only be received, in Communion with the 
Church of Christ. In the words of St. Je- 
rome, " Qui matrem Ecclesiam contempserit, 
morte morietur." And in those of St. 
Augustine, " Sanctus mons Dei sancta Ec- 
clesia ejus ; qui non ei communicant, non ex- 
audiuntur ad vitam seternam." And of St. 
Ambrose, " Ecclesia est Corpus Christi ; 
et ille negat Christum, qui non omnia, quae 
Christi sunt, confitetur." And of St. Au- 
gustine again, " Ecclesia Catholica sola cor- 
pus est Christi, cujus Ille Caput est et Sal- 
vator corporis Sui. Extra hoc corpus ne- 
minem vivificat Spiritus Sanctus." " Nulla 
salus, nisi in Ecclesia" was the concur- 
rent language of all Christian antiquity ; and 
in the words of St. Cyprian, and of St. Au- 
gustine, " Nemo potest habere Deum Patrem, 
qui non habet Ecclesiam Matrem. ' ' 

(El. 12. You say that there is no salvation 
but in the Church, and that the Church is dis- 
tinguished from all other Societies by Faith 
in our Lord Jesus Christ, do you hereby in- 




22 SALVATION ONLY IN THE CHURCH. 

tend to say that all who were born before the 
coming of Christ, and all who since, His In- 
carnation have remained in ignorance of Him, 
are excluded from all hope of salvation? 

21. No : certainly not. The Church con- 
sists of the covenanted People of God in all 
countries and ages, whether before or after 
the coming of Christ: and the object of its 
John riii. 66. Faith has ever been one and the same, Jesus 
2 cor!iv.i^' Christ. The members of the Church be- 
Heb.xi.7-35. j? ore jjj s CO ming believed in Him to come; 
we believe in Him having come. The sea- 
sons of the Church are changed, but her 
faith is unchanged and unchangeable, and 
we doubt not that by that faith men have 
been saved in every age and country of the 
world. 

(&. 13. But what then do you say of those 
who remain in entire ignorance of Christ ? 
Lukexii.48. ^ # J (j no t venture to say anything, ex- 
cept that man's responsibilities vary with his 
privileges, and that Christ's merits and mercy 
are infinite, and that they are in God's hands 
and not in ours. Our duty here, is to adore 
in silence the depth of the riches of the wis- 
dom and knowledge of God, and to discharge 
those practical duties which the consideration 
of their case forces upon us. 
(&. 14. What are these ? 

i Thmhl* ^- First the dut 7 of thankfulness to God, 

12. that " He hath called us with a holy calling 

to His kingdom and glory," by admitting us 

into Covenant with Himself in Jesus Christ ; 

next, since it is revealed unto us in Scrip- 



ON ERRORS IN THE CHURCH. 23 

ture, that " no one cometh unto Him but by Chap. 
Christ, Who is the Way, the Truth and the v - 
Life, and that there is none other Name given j^ ^CT 
under heaven whereby men maybe saved," Acts it. 12. 
we are bound to commiserate the condition 
of those who have not been admitted into 
this covenant; and, thirdly, to pray God for 
them, and to do all in our power to promote 
the cause of Christian Missioiis, in order that 
all the nations of the world may be brought 
within the pale of the Church, and become 
one fold, under one Shepherd, Jesus Christ. 



CHAPTER V. 



ON ERRORS IN THE CHURCH. 



(JH. 1. Can the Church fail? 

&. No. Particular Churches may fail,2. e T; li, ?-, c 

, . ~ y _ . -,. . ^ - . ' Matt. xvi. 18. 

but the entire Catholic Church cannot; for 1tib.xxviii.20. 
is Christ's Body ; and He has promised that 
" the gates of hell shall not prevail against 
it," and that He will be with it " always, even Lukexv«.i. 
unto the end of the world." The Church isiTim SS iv"'i.' 
subject to vicissitudes, but cannot be de-I^J};!; 
stroyed ; its Light may wane, but shall never Ib - xiii - 8 - 
be extinct. The seven-branched Candlestick 
of the Universal Church will always stand, 




24 ON ERRORS 

though any one of its branches may be re- 
f moved from its socket, and another branch 
planted in its room. 

dl. 2. Can the Church err ? 

21. The Invisible Church, or company of 

God's elect People, is safe from error ; and 

the entire visible Church cannot err ; but it 

may be so much affected by the depraved 

lives, corrupt tenets, or violent passions of 

many of its members, that its true voice may 

at times falter or be suppressed ; and though 

there will be always truth in it by reason of 

ps.xm.5. Christ's perpetual presence in the Church, 

joei^. 16. 'and as it is "the pillar and ground of the 

obad.17. truth," yet that truth will be more or less 

generally and publicly apparent at different 

^ e 2 ^ iii - 8 - times. Christ Himself has spoken of the 

Matt.xxiv.3,time when Iniquity will abound and Charity 

Gen. Tii. xix. will wax cold, and the Faith will be hard to 

2 The^u .3- find. He has said that as it was in the days 

Actsii.i9-2i. °f Noah and of Lot, so will it be at his Second 

* Comihg, the circumstances of which were 

prefigured by the calamities suffered at the 

taking of Jerusalem. St. Paul has spoken 

in like manner of "perilous times" for the 

Church. Though there will be always grain 

in the threshing-floor of the Church, yet the 

chaff may sometimes nearly hide it ; though 

wheat will be ever in the field, yet it may 

sometimes be almost choked with tares. 

Therefore, though the Universal Church 

cannot err, yet any particular, and even the 

representative, Church (i. e., the Church as 

represented by Councils) may. 



IN THE CHURCH. 25 

<Q. 3. But if the representative Church 
may err, what is the use of General or 
(Ecumenical Councils in which the Universal 
Church is represented? 

21. Very great : first, though the repre- 
sentative Church may err, yet it is not to be 
presumed that it will err, but that it will not; 
and we knoiv that such Councils are of Apos- 
tolic institution, and have been eminently 
serviceable for the maintenance of truth, and 
suppression of error ; and though, a priori, 
it be admitted that they may err, yet, a pos- 
teriori, it is to be believed that they have not 
erred in whatever, having been decreed by 
them, has been universally received in the 
Church, as, for example, the doctrinal ca- 
nons of the first four General Councils; and 
though it should be thought that they are in 
error, yet, until the error be plainly shown 
to be against Scripture, private opinions 
are to give way to Public Authority, for the 
.sake of peace and for the end or avoidance 
of strife. Though the Church may err, it 
does not follow that she is not to be obeyed; 
for mater errans mater est. In controverted 
points we must stand by the determination 
of the Church, (unless, as has been said, it is 
clearly against Scripture,) for the sake of 
the preservation of her Peace and Unity, 
which is of the very essence of Christianity. 

(£l. iv. You speak of General or (Ecu- 
menical Councils ; What do you mean by 
• hose words? 

21. In Ecclesiastical language, a Council 
3 





26 ON ERRORS 

is an assemblage of bishops, lawfully con- 
vened, to deliberate on the affairs of the 
Church. It is either provincial, national, 
patriarchal, or general. A provincial council, 
is one in which all the bishops of a province 
or that portion of the Church which is sub- 
ject to the jurisdiction of an Archbishop, are 
convened. In England a provincial council 
is called a Convocation, and the authority of 
the bishops is checked by the existence of a 
Lower House, composed of presbyters, who 
have the right of a negative on the determi- 
nations of the Upper House, which is com- 
posed of bishops ; and also of originating pro- 
positions, on which the Upper House has, in 
its turn, a negative. A national council is 
an assemblage of all the bishops of a par- 
ticular nation. In the United States, the na- 
tional council is called the General Conven- 
tion. The bishops, as in the English Con- 
vocations, compose an upper house, called 
the House of Bishops, the power of which 
is checked, as in England, by the existence of 
a lower, but co-ordinate house, composed of 
clergymen and laymen, chosen equally by the 
different dioceses. This lower house is called 
the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies. A 
patriarchal council is an assemblage of all the 
bishops of a patriarchate. A General or (Ecu- 
menical Council is an assemblage of all the 
bishops of the world, or one in which all the 
bishops are invited or at least entitled to sit. 
(El. v. Has there ever been any council at 
which all the bishops in the world have been 
present ? 



, IN THE CHUCRH. 27 

21. There has not. In fact there has been 
no council, to which all the bishops in the 
world have been invited ; nor any at which 
more than a small minority of them were 
present. The name of General Council, is, 
however, given to certain ancient assemblages 
of bishops, which were free to all bishops 
who chose to come to them, and whose de- 
terminations have received the sanction of 
the Church at large. 

(Si. vi. What do you mean by the Church 
at large ? 

21. The whole body of believers. 

(Si. vii. How have the whole body of be- 
lievers sanctioned the decisions and definitions 
of the councils of which you are speaking ? 

21. By acquiescence, and by not asserting 
in any way, that such action contained any 
thing at variance with the Christian faith as 
they had received it. The definitions of Ge- 
neral Councils thus sanctioned, become con- 
clusive evidence of the sense, in which the 
traditions of the- Universal Church have ex- 
plained the Holy Scriptures, of what had 
been believed every where, always and by 
all Churches. It is this acquiescence which 
gives to the proceedings of a General Council 
its authority. A Council, in which any bishop 
who pre&ents himself is entitled to a seat, is 
in one sense general, but its decisions and 
definitions have not the authority of the 
Church, until they have been received by the 
Church ; so that until then, it is not, in the 
highest sense, General or (Ecumenical. 




V, 



28 ON ERRORS 

Part ^. viii. How many such councils have 

there been ? 
"^^ 21. There have been six which have been 

received by the three great branches of the 
Catholic Church, the Greek, Latin, and An- 
glican communions ; but some of these are 
rejected by some communions in the east, 
which, on that account are considered as 
heretical. 

(&. ix. It would seem then that some of 
these councils have not been universally re- 
ceived ; how then are they oecumenical ? 

21. In the strictest sense of language, no 
council has ever been universally received. 
They were all convened to decide disputed 
points, and the party against which they de- 
cided, of course rejected their decree. But 
the great body of the Church, not involved 
in the disputes, has accepted the decrees of 
all the councils. 

Cfii. x. Are there any differences of opin- 
ion as to the number of the General Councils ? 

21. Yes : the Greek Church formally ac- 
knowledges seven, one of which she practi- 
cally disregards, and it is formally rejected 
by the Anglican communion. The Church 
of Rome acknowledges several others, all of 
which are rejected by the Greek and Angli- 
can communions, and so are clearly not oecu- 
menical. The Church of Rome ■ has not au- 
thoritatively decided as to the exact number 
of (Ecumenical Councils, and her best wri- 
ters differ about it ; but the weight of autho- 
rity, within her pale, is in favour of eighteen. 



IN THE CHURCH. 29 

<Q. xi. Which are the six (Ecumenical Chai\ 
Councils ? v • 

21. The first is the Council of Nice, which 
met at Nicea in Bithynia, on the 19th June, 
325. It was summoned by Constantine the 
Great, and consisted of three hundred and 
eighteen bishops. Hosius, Bishop of Cordova 
in Spain, Alexander, Patriarch of Alexan- 
dria, and Eustathius, Patriarch of Antioch 
acted as presidents of the Council. But Ho- 
sius, although of the three, his see was the 
lowest in rank, subscribed first. The ruling 
spirit of the council, was the great Athana- 
sius, who attended upon the Patriarch of 
Alexandria as deacon. 

The second was the First Council of Con- 
stantinople, held in 381. It was convoked 
by the Emperor, Theodosius the Great, from 
the Eastern Church only, and consisted of 
one hundred and fifty bishops. The Bishop 
of Rome was not represented. Timothy, 
Patriarch of Alexandria, was the chief pre- 
sident. 

The third was the Council of Ephesus, as- 
sembled in 431, by the Emperor Theodosius 
the younger, and was attended by one hun- 
dred and ninety-eight bishops. St. Cyril, 
Patriarch of Alexandria presided. 

The fourth was that of Chalcedon, held in 
451. It was summoned by the Emperor Mer- 
cian, and six hundred and thirty bishops at- 
tended, all from the East, except four, who 
attended as legates from the Bishop of Rome. 
The Emperor wished the Bishop of Rome to 
3* 




30 ON ERRORS 

preside, but he declined giving his personal 
attendance, and named, in his stead, Pascha- 
sinus, Bishop of Lilybeum, in Sicily. 

The fifth was the second of Constantinople, 
summoned by the Emperor Justinian, in 553. 
The bishops were one hundred and sixty-five. 
It is sometimes called a supplemental council 
because it neither passed any canons of dis- 
cipline, nor any original definition of faith, 
but contented itself with confirming and ap- 
plying the definitions of former councils. 

The sixth General Council, or Third Coun- 
cil of Constantinople, is also considered as a. 
supplemental council for the same reasons. 
It was convened by the Emperor Constantino 
Pogonatus, and sat in the years 680 and 684. 
Ancient writers are not agreed as to the num- 
ber of the bishops present. In consequence 
of these two councils being only supplemen- 
tal, it is not unusual to speak of the "Four 
General Councils." 

(&. xii. What is the authority of those coun- 
cils which are called General, but are not uni- 
versally acknowledged? 

Qt. They are treated by those who receive 
them as of equal authority with the real Ge- 
neral Councils. By those who reject them 
they are treated with very little respect. 

(St. xiii. Can you give me some account of 
them ? 

21. The first of them is the so called 
Second Council of Nice, which the Greeks 
and Latins call the Seventh General Council, 
although the former do not respect its decree 



IN THE CHURCH. 31 

in favour of the worship of images, which Chap. 
they hold in abhorrence, while they allow 
that of pictures. This council was called by 
the Empress Irene, for the purpose of esta- 
blishing the worship of images. It met in 
787, was attended by three hundred and 
eighty bishops. The legates of the Pope pre- 
sided. It was not at first readily received in 
the East, although supported by the civil 
power, and in 815 another council assembled 
at Constantinople anathematized it, "and 
from that period until 842, a space of nearly 
thirty years, it remained rejected by the Em- 
perors and a large part of the eastern Church. 
It is not to be inferred from this, however, 
that it was yet received as an oecumenical 
council, even by its advocates ; in 863 it was 
still not reckoned as such in any of the 
eastern Churches, except Constantinople and 
its dependencies ; as we find by a letter ad- 
dressed by Photius, in that year, to the Pa- 
triarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusa- 
lem, in which he estimates, that though the 
synod of Nice was held in great reverence, 
yet it was not reckoned among the oecumeni- 
cal councils which he argued it ought to be." 
In 869 the same Photius procured a decree 
from a council held at Constantinople, reckon- 
ing the synod of Nice as the Seventh (Ecu- 
menical Council, but that council is itself not 
reckoned oecumenical in the East. In fact, 
nearly six hundred years after its celebration 
some of the orientals still denied its autho- 
rity. 




32 ON ERRORS 

In the west, upwards of three hundred 
bishops, assembled in council at Frankfort on 
the Maine, in 794, rejected the Second Coun- 
cil of Nice, and their decree was generally 
accepted throughout the West, except at 
Rome. Notwithstanding all the influence of 
the Popes it remained rejected for about fiye 
centuries and a half. But it is now received 
throughout the Latin Communion. The An- 
glican communion rejected it at the Reforma- 
tion. 

The eighth General Council according to 
the Latins is the fourth of Constantinople, 
held in 869 as above mentioned. It is re- 
jected by the Greek and Anglican commu- 
nions. The other so called General Councils 
of the Church of Rome, were called by the 
Pope and not free to any bishops who did not 
acknowledge his authority. They were all 
rejected by the whole Eastern Church. 

(&. xiv. What was done at the first Gene- 
ral Council? 

21. The Arian heresy was condemned, the 
creed commonly called the Nicene was adopted, 
as far as the clause, " I believe in the Holy 
Ghost," inclusive, but not in the precise form 
in which we have it. Twenty canons of dis- 
cipline were enacted, of which the most im- 
portant was the fourth, which directs the 
mode of electing, confirming, and consecrating 
bishops, omitting ajl mention of the Pope, and 
giving the right of confirmation to the me- 
tropolitans respectively, of the sees of An- 
tioch and Alexandria, as entirely upon an 



IN THE CHURCH. 38 

equality with that of Rome; and confines 
all the patriarchs to their respective, proper 
jurisdictions. The synod also settled the 
rule for keeping Easter as it is still observed. 

(Q,. xv. What was done at the second 
General Council? 

St. The creed commonly called the Nicene 
creed, was finally adopted, in the form in 
which we now have it in our Prayer Books, 
except the words, " and the Son," in the 
clause relative to the procession of the Holy 
Ghost. These words are a modern addition, 
and have never been received by the Greek 
Church. Seven canons of discipline were 
enacted, most of which were inconsistent with 
the modern pretensions of Rome. 

6H. xvi. What was done in the third Ge- 
neral Council ? 

21. The Nestorian heresy was condemned. 
The creed of Constantinople, commonly called 
the Nicene Creed, was confirmed, and a pro- 
hibition against making any other enacted. 
Eight canons of discipline were made, the 
eighth of which, established what is called 
the Cyprian privilege, declaring the island 
of Cyprus to have been always free from all 
patriarchal jurisdiction, and restraining the 
patriarchs within their proper bounds of their 
jurisdictions. The claim of the Pope to any 
jurisdiction beyond the limits of his own pa- 
triarchate is in violation of this canon. The 
Roman patriarchate properly contains the 
south of Italy and the Island of Sicily. 

(St. xvii. What was done in the fourth 
General Council? 




34 ON ERRORS 

Part &. The Eutychian heresy was condemned, 
the Nicene Creed confirmed, and thirty-seven 
canons of discipline enacted. 

(St. xviii. If the Church representative may 
err, does it not follow that national and pro- 
vincial councils and individuals may also err ? 

31. Yes. 

(fil. 19. In what respects may individuals 
in the Church err as well as entire national 
Churches ? 

21. Principally by Heresies or by Schisms. 

(£1. 20. What is the meaning of the word 

Heresy ? 

Rom. xiy.rr. 21. It comes from the Greek, cupm*, a 

2 Thess. in. 6. e j l0 { ce ^ an( j || nie ans an arbitrary adoption, 

2 John 10. j n matters of faith, of opinions at variance 

with the doctrines delivered by Christ and 

His Apostles, and received from them by the 

Catholic Church. 

(Q. 21. Is every one who holds an error 
in religion to be called a Heretic ? 

jamesiv n' ^" ^°* -^ rror ne itk er voluntarily adopted, 

Jude22.' 'nor pertinaciously defended, does ?iot, — but 

error willingly adopted, publicly avowed, 

and obstinately maintained, does, — make a 

man a Heretic. 

(El. 22. In what consists the sin of Here- 
tics? 
i cor. ir. e. 5\, # l n that they proudly presume to be 
wise concerning the things of God above 
what is written, and to obtain salvation from 
Him on terms invented by themselves. 

(£1. 23. What is the language of Scripture 
concerning Heresy? 




IN THE CHURCH. 35 

21. Heresy is corruption of that purity 
which is the characteristic of Christ's Church, 
who is described in Scripture as a chaste 
Virgin. St. Peter speaks of " false teachers * Corxili - 3 - 
bringing in privily damnable heresies. " St. 2 Cor - **• 2 - 
Paul compares them to the magicians of 2 Pet. ii. i. 
Egypt who resisted Moses, and says, " Though 2 Tim - m - 8 * 
we, or an Angel from heaven, preach any 
other Gospel unto you than that whicH we Gal - L 8 - 
have preached unto you, let him be ac- 
cursed. " " A man that is a Heretic after the TitusiiI 10 
first and second admonition, reject; knowing **• 
that he that is such, is subverted and sin- 
neth, being condemned of himself i. e., by 
his own choice, viz., by what he himself has 
chosen (elegit,) instead of framing his will 
to maintain that which Reason and Religion 
teach. 

<&. 24. What is Schism? 

21. It is the act by which any entire or 
national Church, or any individual member 
thereof, voluntarily divides, or separates it- 
self or himself from the unity of the visible 
Church, or makes divisions in it. 

(d. 25. What is the difference between 
Heresy and Schism ? 

21. In the words of St. Jerome, " Heresy 
maintains perverse doctrine. Schism is a 
separation (jsx^h scindit) from the Church, 
in the nature of an Episcopalis disssensio," ' ]^2 gs ***• 
or dissent from Ecclesiastical governors when 
a man wholly or occasionally withdraws him- 
self from communion with his lawful Bishop 
and Pastor, and takes any part in setting up 




36 ON ERRORS 

or maintaining Bishop against Bishop, Pastor 
against Pastor, or altar against altar. "But," 
adds St. Jerome, " there is no schism which 
does not tend to generate for itself some 
Heresy ; whence St. Augustine calls Heresy 
a Sehisma inveteratum. Heresy is contra 
dogmata, contra Fidem, et contra veritatem; 
Schism, contra personas, contra disciplinam, 
et tontra caritatem. 

<£H. 26. What do we learn from Scripture 
concerning Schism? 
Num.m.4. g^ As the punishment and fearful judg- 
ment of God on Nadab and Abihu is a warn- 
jmte nli * n § a g a i n st Heresy, so is that on Korah, 
i Kings xii. Dathan, and Abiram, against Schism. Je- 
roboam, who is characterized in Scripture 
more than twenty times as he that "made 
icor.i.io. I sr ael to sin," is an example of both Heresy 
and Schism. St. Paul says to the Corinthi- 
icor. xiii3. ans > "^ beseech you, brethren, by the name 
Gai° r ' 20 2i °^ ^ esus Christ, that you all speak the same 
' thing, and that there be no divisions (a^^afa) 
among you." And he declares that nothing, 
not even martyrdom, projiteth without charity. 
Schism is a carnal work, and as such excludes 
from heaven ; it tends to the subversion of a 
Church, for a kingdom or house divided 
against itself cannot stand ; it is a rending 
of Christ's blessed body ; a violation of the 
marriage compact between Him and the 
Church (poized ftvevpatixri ;) a disregard of 
Matt. xii. 25. His Divine Example, by which He taught 
JohnX111 * 34 * His disciples to love one another; an open 
contempt of His Prayer, " As Thou, Father, 




IN THE CHURCH. 37 

art in Me, and I in Thee ; so may they also 

be one in Us, that they may be one, as We^ 

are one;" a breaking of the bond of love, 

by which Christ's disciples are to be known ; 22. 

a falling away from the practice of the mem- J^^- ? 5 » 

bers of the Apostolic Church, who were all 32. 

of one accord, of one heart and one soul. GaLv.22. 

(fit. 27. But if the Legislature of a country 
tolerates schismatics, does it not make 
Schism to be innocent ? 

21. No ; this is beyond all human power. 
As, z/the State prescribe Schism under a 
penalty, it would oblige ad poenam, but not 
ad culpam ; so, although it may remove all 
the civil penalties of Schism, it cannot di- 
minish its religious guilt ; " Poena potest 
demi ; culpa per 'ennis erit" 

(El. 28. To consider the case of wilful and 
obstinate Heretics and Schismatics ; are they 
in the Church? 

21. We may not say they are in the In- 
visible Church ; for wilful and obstinate He- 
retics, as far as their heresy ', and Schisma- 
tics, as far as their schism, is concerned, 
have forsaken the true Church of God, which 
is sound in doctrine, and joined together 
in unity ; but by virtue of the Sacraments 
which they may have received, and of such 
articles of Christian Faith as they may still 
continue to hold, they are so far in the Vi- 
sible Church. Being Heretics or Schisma- 
tics, but not being Jews, Saracens, Infidels, 
Atheists, or Apostates, they are still members , 
of the Visible Church, though peccant and 
4 




38 ON ERRORS IN THE CHURCH. 

unsound members ; they are a part, though 
a maimed and corrupt part, of the Visible 
Church. " Sunt in Ecclesia quamvis non 
salubriter in Ecclesia." They are, indeed, 
in the Church, but as long as they are wilful 
Heretics or Schismatics they receive no be- 
nefit from it. They are subjects of Christ, 
but rebellious ones. By breaking Unity, they 
have forsaken Charity, without which other 
things profit them not, but rather increase 
their condemnation. 

(Si. 29. What are the consequent duties of 
. individual members of the Church toward 
Heretics and Schismatics ? 

91. To feel deep sorrow for them ; to act 
towards them in a spirit of charity and gen- 
tleness, but not to communicate with them 
in their Heresy or Schism, or to encourage 
or flatter them in it, or to treat it lightly, but 
to speak the truth in love concerning its sin 
and danger ; to pray for them ; to offer them 
counsel and exhortation ; and to employ all 
practicable means for bringing them to the 
enjoyment of those spiritual blessings which 
Ps.cxxxiii. are promised to all who love the peace of 
Christ's Church, and dwell together in Unity. 



cxxii. 6. 



WORD OF GOD. 39 



CHAPTER VI. 



ON PRIVILEGES IN THE CHURCH. 

Word of Grod. — The Qhurch its Witness and 
Keeper. 

(Si. 1. What privileges do the members Chap. 
of the Church derive through her means from VI. 
God? ^ >. ' 

21. First, the Word of God pure and en- 1 Pet. i. 23. 

x» ^ James i. 18. 

tire. iii. 17. 

(d. 2. How is the Word of God received 
through the Church ? 

2i. As the two tables of the Law were by 
God's command consigned to the Ark, soDeut. x .2. • 
by His divine Will the two Testaments are 
committed to the Church, who is the ap- 
pointed Witness, Keeper, and Interpreter of 
Holy Writ, and is thence called by St. Paul 

<t*v%o$ xo.1 £ 8 pat co pa trj$ a%y6swLf, "the pillar and 1 Tim. iii. 15. 

ground of the truth." 

<&. 3. How is the Church a Witness and 
Keeper of Holy Writ? 

QL The Old Testament is received by us 
from the Church of the Jews, to whom werei sa<T iii.fia. 
committed the oracles of God, and who re-?° m -j??'?A ■ 
ceived those "lively oracles to give unto us, xiii. 14,15, 

27 xv 21 

and by whom " of old time they were read 
in the Synagogues every Sabbath day;" and 




40 PRIVILEGES IN THE CHURCH. 

we know that they were by them delivered, 
pure and entire, into the hands of the Chris- 
tian Church, from the fact that the Jews, 
being dispersed in all parts of the world, 
could never have conspired to make, any 
change in their sacred books, had they de- 
sired to do so, which they were so far from 
doing, that they would rather die a thousand 
deaths, than allow any change to be made in 
them ; and that every verse and every letter 
of the sacred text was scrupulously registered 
in their Masora ; and, lastly, that Christ 
when reproving the Scribes and Lawyers, 
never charges them with the sin of corrupt- 
ing the Books of the Law, which He would 
not have omitted to do, had they been guilty 
of it ; and that He and his Apostles quote 
the Scriptures of the Old Testament as they 
existed then amongst the Jews, and as they 
still exist derived through them to us. 

(£t. 4. Next, what has been the office of 
the Christian Church with respect to the 
New Testament? 

21. To deliver it, as well as the Old Tes- 
tament, down to us also, from age to age, 
as it was first written. That these writings, 
as we now possess them, are precisely the 
same as when they were first given to the 
world, we know from the facts of their having 
Doi. iv.m been publicly received by Synods of the 
' (Jnurcn ; trom their having been openly read, 
immediately after their publication, in Con- 
gregations of the Church in numerous places 
very distant from each other ; from their 



LThees.v.27. 



WORD OF GOD. 41 

having b£en translated at an early period Cjup. 
into different languages for the use of vari- "• 
ous Churches, which Versions thus made are ^ v~* ^ 
found to coincide precisely with the present 
text ; and from the fact, that the Fathers of 
the Church, in all parts of the wojld, be- 
ginning with the Apostles themselves, have 
referred to them, quoted them, and commented J 6 Pet - iiL 15 » 
upon them, without any discrepancy from the 
copies which have been handed down to us. 

(El. 5. How do we know that the Books 
of the New Testament are genuine, i. e., were 
written by those whose names they bear? 

%, From the testimony of the Church, 
which received them as such, both in Gene- 
ral Councils collectively, and also separately 
in different and distant parts of the world, 
and read them publicly in Christian assem- 
blies as the works of such writers, from the 
time of their first appearance. 

td. 6. Next, have we any witness of the 
Church that these writings are inspired, i. e., 
are the Word of God ? 

21. Yes ; the Primitive Church, which had i j hn iv. i. 
both the supernatural power of trying andgSoLi*?.' 10 ' 
discerning the spirits, and also the best na- 1 p et m. is, 
tural opportunities for ascertaining the truth, ReV. a. 2. 
every where received and publicly read them 
as inspired, while at the same time she rejected 
other writings falsely pretending to be so ; 
and excommunicated those who published 
them. 

(&. 7. Have we any other foundation for 

our belief that the Bible is the Word of God ? 
4* 




42 PRIVILEGES IN THE CHURCH. 

21. Yes : we have internal, as well as ex- 
f ternal evidence ; God gives us reason and 
5 grace; the Church prepares, predisposes, and 
1 cor. xi. 13. moves us to this belief by her authority, and 
67. e xu * ' by showing us that it is supported by the 
testimony of all successive ages, even from the 
time of the Apostles and Evangelists, who 
were incompetent of themselves to write and 
do what they wrote and did; and whose 
lives, actions, and sufferings, with the effects 
produced by them, prove that they could 
neither be deceived nor deceive in this mat- 
ter; this is external evidence: and then, 
through the grace of the Spirit of God, the 
Scripture itself, by its own power, its moral 
purity, its divine beauty, the wonderful har- 
mony and unity of all its parts (extending 
over many thousand years,) and by the ful- 
filment of its prophecies, confirms, establishes, 
and settles us in the belief of what the Church 
has before testified; and this is internal evi- 
dence that the Bible is the Word of God. 

(St. 8. How does the Church employ the 
Scripture, of which she is the Witness and 
Keeper, in teaching us the true faith ? 

21. Both by her language and by her 
practice, in her own person, and in that of 
our Parents and Teachers, who act by her 
guidance and with her authority, she invites 
and leads us by the hand to Christ, to whom 
Bph.v.24. she is subject, and Whom she hears, wor- 
ships, and obeys, as her Husband, her Head, 
her Teacher, and her Saviour ; she instructs 
us in His will, she calls us to hear His doc- 




WORD. OF GOD. 43 

trine, as revealed by Him in Holy Scrip- 
ture, of which she is the Witness and Guar- 
dian ; and then the doctrine itself finally 
persuades, convinces, settles, and stablishes John xVi. ia. 
us in the Faith, through the influence of 2 Pet 1 21 * 
the Holy Spirit,' Whose word the Scripture 
is, by its own inherent truth and power. The 
Church, like the Virgin Mary at Cana, tells 
us " whatsoever He saith unto you, do it." johnx. 27. 
Like the sister of Lazarus, she sits at Christ's Luke x - 39 - 
feet, and listens to His words. She performs 
to us the part of the Samaritan woman, who John iv - 29 - 
brought her friends to Christ ; concerning 
whom we read, that they first believed on 
Him for her saying ; but when He had 
remained with them two days, and they had 
heard Him they believed because of His own 
word, and said unto the woman, as we now 
say to the Church, "Now we believe : but no 
longer (ovxiti) because of thy saying; for we John iv. 42. 
have heard Him ourselves, and know that this 
is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the 
world." 

<HL 9. What inferences do we then derive 
from Scripture with respect to the Church ? 

Qt. From Christ speaking to us in Holy 
Scripture we learn which is His true Church. 
"In Sacro Codice Ipsum Caput ostendit 
nobis corpus suum." The Church shows us 
Scripture by her ministry: the Scripture 
shows us the Church by Christ Himself. 

<El. 10. By what name did the Church call 
those writings which she received as inspired ? 

21. Canonical. 




44 PRIVILEGES IN THE CHURCH. 

(El. 11. What is the derivation and mean- 
ing of this word ? 

3L It comes from the Greek, xavw*>, a rule ; 
and Canonical Scriptures are those which are 
the Rule of Christian Faith and Practice. 

(JH. 12. What were the* rejected Books 
called by the early Church? 

Qt. Apocryphal. 

<JH. 13. Whence is this word derived, and 
what does it mean ? 

21. It is derived from the Greek d*6, from, 
and xpvrtti*, to hide ; and it generally desig- 
nated those Books which were kept apart, and 
not read in the Church. 

(JH. 14. How then does it happen that the 
majority of the Books (seven of the twelve,) 
which are called Apocrypha in our English 
Bible, are read in the Church of England ? 

Qt. These Books, which are so read, were 
not commonly called Apocryphal by the an- 
cient Church, but Ecclesiastical, and were 
read in the Christian Church (JUcclesia,) 
(though not in the Synagogues of the Jews,) 
" for example of life and instruction of man- 
ners, but not to establish any doctrine;" and 
are by some authors, in a restricted sense } 
sometimes even called Canonical, as being 
found in the Canon or Sacred Catalogue of 
certain Churches ; and they are not to be con- 
founded with those which were called Apocry- 
phal in early times, and which were not re- 
ceived or read by the Church. 

(&. xv. To what extent does the American 
Church read these books ? 



WORD OF GOD. 45 

2i. On sixteen days of the year, she reads Chap. 
twenty-seven lessons from them. Of these, VI1 - 
twenty are from the book called Ecclesias- 
ticus, and seven from that called the Wisdom 
of Solomon. She reads no part of any of the 
other books. 

(01. 16. In what language were the Ca- 
nonical Books written ? 

21. Those of the Old Testament in Hebrew ; 
those of the New Testament in Greek. 

(d. 17. Ought any Version or Transla- 
tion of the Scriptures to be received as of 
equal authority with the Original ? 

21. Certainly not : every Version of the 
Scriptures, both as a Version and as the 
work of man, must yield to the original 
Word of Gf-od. The human stream cannot 
rise to a level with the Divine source. 



CHAPTER VII. 

ON PRIVILEGES IN THE CHURCH. 

Right Interpretation of the Word of Grod. 

(Si. 1. You said that the Church is an In- 
terpreter of God's Word; how is this the 
case? 

21. First, and that negatively, as not be- 
ing a Legislator ; that is, not legislatively, but 




46 RIGHT INTERPRETATION 

judicially y not by making laws, but by ex- 
t plaining and declaring those which God has 
promulgated. She has no power against the 
truth, but for the truth, and may -not "so 
expound one place of Scripture that it be re- 
2 cor. xiu. 8. pugnant to another.' ' This being premised, 
Art ' tt the doctrinal interpretations of God's Word 
which have been generally declared and re- 
ceived by the Universal Church from the be- 
ginning, and ascertained partly from Creeds, 
Confessions of Faith, Liturgies, and the prac- 
tice of the Church, partly from Commentaries 
on Scripture, and partly from other ex- 
positions of the most eminent Divines and 
Preachers, are justly concluded to be true ; 
and those which are novel may be presumed 
to be false : " Id verius quod prius, id prius 
quod ab initio/ ' 

(El. 2. But if what you have said be so, 
might it not be objected that our faith rests 
on the authority, not of the Bible, but of the 
Church ? 

21. No. The Church and the Bible are 
both from God : the one is God's Kingdom, 
the other is His Word. As soon as we are 
conscious of any thing, we find the Church 
with Holy Scripture in her hands, and ap- 
pointed by God to deliver it to us, and to 
instruct us in its meaning. The Church 
speaks to us ministerially, the Bible autho- 
ritatively. 

(El. 3. She does not, therefore, on her own 
authority, impose on us any article of faith 
as necessary to salvation ? 



OF THE WORD OF GOD. 47 

21. No. The manifold wisdom of God is Chap. 
made known to us by the Church ; but she v j***j 
dares not teach any thing, as necessary to E ~ h m 10 
salvation, except what she has received from Jer.xxiii.28. 
Christ and his Apostles : she does not exer- E^k/iifao. 
cise " dominion over pur faith/' but is a2Cor.i.24. 
" helper of our joy." 

(fit. 4. Since the Word of God is difficult 
to be understood, both from its own nature 
and from the nature of man, and since man is 
prone to forget and to neglect what he un- 
derstands, what ordinances are there in the 
Church for its exposition and perpetual incul- 
cation ? 

21. Those of Catechizing, or Oral instruc- P e £- V-}> & 

° 7 i ■, Luke i. 4. 

tion (*af ij^tf ej) by question and answer, and 2 Tim. ir. 2. 
Public Preaching. 

<2H. 5. What is the subject matter of Ca- 
techizing in the Christian Church ? 

21. First, the Apostles' Creed; secondly, 
the Ten Commandments ; thirdly, the Lord's 
Prayer ; fourthly, the Two Sacraments. 

(&,. 6. What do we learn from these ? 

21. From the Creed we learn credenda, 
i. e., what we are to believe; from the Deca- 
logue, agenda, what we are to do; from the 
Lord's Prayer, petenda or postulanda, what 
we are to pray for ; in the Sacraments, adhi- 
benda, means to be used for our growth in 
grace. 

QH. 7. In what does Preaching consist? 

21. In the Public Reading and Expound- 
ing of Holy Writ. 

(HI. 8. To whom is the ministry of these 
ordinances' committed ? 




48 RIGHT INTERPRETATION 

21. Our Lord commanded His Apostles to 

and teach all nations," saying, "As 

... my Father hath sent Me, so send I you :" 

Matt, xxviu. «J T . T . . ? _ J 

19. and, "Lo! 1 am with you alway, even unto 

Matt. »vm! the end of the world." His Apostles sent 
20 * others, as He sent them, and with the same 

commission, ordering them to commit their 
2 Tim. a. 2. doctrine "to faithful men, who should teach 
others also." Thus Christ made a permanent, 
hereditary, and successive provision of Pas- 
tors and Teachers for his Church ; and they, 
who hold the form of sound words of the 
Apostles, and who derive their commission 
through them and their successors consecu- 
See below, tively from Christ Himself, are the autho- 
oh. riii. r i Z ed Teachers and Expounders of the Word 
of God. 

(fit. 9. Is this method of teaching by hu- 
man means consistent with the usual course 
of God's dispensations? 

21. Yes. To the Jews God not only gave a 
Law, but He commanded Parents to teach 
it to their children, and appointed a suc- 
cession of human Expounders of it, and of 
Ministers under it. At St. Paul's conversion 
Christ sent Ananias to him. The angel sent 
j£?raiu.i! Philip the Evangelist to instruct the Ethio- 
Actsfx^o- pi an - And Cornelius was ordered in a dream 
18.^26. to send for St. Peter. "Faith cometh by 
Rom. x. 17, hearing; and hearing by the word of God." 
' i And how shall men hear without a Preacher ? ' ' 
God ordinarily instructs the minds of men, 

see below, as He heals their bodies, by means of other 
rt.i.ch.xiY. m ^ 



OF THE WORD OF GOD. 49 

(Q. 10. What are the beneficial ends of Chap. 
this arrangement ? . 

Qt. It is " useful for the humiliation of v ""' 
man's pride, who would not be debtor to any 
one but himself." It tends to promote charity 
between man and man, by a mutual inter- 
change of blessings. It is a condescension \ £££ j^ 
to his weakness, and a trial of his obedience. 
It is an evidence of the truth and efficacy of 
the Gospel, which is committed to earthern 
vessels, that all may see that the excellency 
of its power is not of man but of God. 2 Cor ' 1T * 7 * 

(&. 11. But since even authorized Exposi- 
tors are human, are they not fallible ? and 
why ought I then to listen with deference to 
their expositions ? 

Ql. Because they have the professional aids 
of learning, study, and experience ; and be- 
cause they are publicly known to have given 
their assent to certain authorized Confessions Rom. xii. 6-8. 
of Faith, and are accountable to their Eccle- 
siastical Superiors for their public teaching i Cor. ix. 16. 
because also it is their greatest duty and 7-9. xSt. 2 
interest to avoid error, and to teach the truth, j^ X m. 17. 
since "they watch for the souls" of their 1Petiv - 5 - 
hearers, " as they that must give account ;" Acts xx. 28. 
and because they are Ministers appointed 2 Tim. i. e. 
and ordained by God "for this very thing," iTim.iY.13- 
and have received and do receive Divine grace 
and assistance from Him for the execution of 
their office. 

(&. 12. Have we any direct precept from 
Scripture, commanding us to seek for and 
10 receive instruction from them ? 




Mark xvi. 15. 



50 RIGHT INTERPRETATION 

2L Yes. They are charged by Christ and 
His Apostles to preach. " The priest's lips 
should keep knowledge, and we should seek 
* the law at his mouth ; for he is the messen- 
lCor. i. is. ger of the Lord of Hosts." On the other 
2 X Tim".iT. 1,2. hand, the greatest wickedness is described 
Hos'iy 7 i hy the words, "Thy people are as they that 
Luke x. 16. strive with the priest;" and our Lord said to 
His Apostles, " He that heareth you, heareth 
Me ; and he that despiseth you, despiseth 
Me; and he that despiseth Me, despiseth 
Matt. x. 4i. Him that sent Me ;" and, "He that receiveth 
a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall re- 
ceive a prophet's reward." 

(St. 13. But authorized expositors may err ; 
am I then to follow them in their error ? 

91. No ; not when you know it to be so : 

our Lord has left us the rule, what to follow, 

and what to avoid. He says, " The Scribes 

and Pharisees sit (ixddiaav,) in Moses' seat, 

(i. e., to teach the Law, in his place ;) all, 

therefore, whatsoever they (so sitting and 

teaching) bid you to observe, that observe 

txxiii2 and do." But He says, also, "Beware of 

| ' the leaven (that is, of the false doctrine) of 

Matt xvi. 6. ^ Pharisees;" that is, we are to follow au- 

Lukexii.i. thorized teachers, and them alone, in that, 

and as far as they teach by, and according 

to, Divine authority; but are not to follow 

them in any errors of doctrine. There may 

be teachers who do not faithfully keep to their 

engagements and duties. 

OH. 14. Am I then to make myself the 
judge whether they are in error ; and if not, 



OF THE WORD OF GOD. 51 

to what test and standard of doctrine am I to Chap. 
appeal? ^JsL^ 

21. We may not listen to our own private i^^iTTa 
independent reason, but, first, and above all, Rom/xii. e.' 
Holy Scripture, as received, guarded, and Ga1,1 ' 8 * 
interpreted by the Catholic Church from the 
beginning " according to the proportion of 
faith," is the Rule to which all teaching of 
Individuals is to be referred, and against 
which no one is to be heard, no, not even " an 
angel from heaven;" and next, subordinately 
and by the way of confirmation and expla- 
nation, the consent of the Church herself, 
speaking in her public Expositions, Creeds, 
Councils, Liturgies, Confessions, and writings 
of her ancient Bishops and Doctors, is to be 
regarded. 

(SI. 15. You speak of her ancient Bishops 
and Doctors; but are not they also private 
and fallible individuals ? 

&. Yes. 

(fit. 16. What ground then is there for any 
special deference to their opinions ? and what 
is the nature of that deference ? 

21. The first act of duty to them is not 
to attempt to raise them to that place where 
they themselves are not willing to stand; 
namely, to a level with the writers of Holy 
Scripture. Scripture alone can neither de- 
ceive nor be deceived ; but the expositions of 
Scripture by the Fathers of the Church are 
entitled, on many grounds, to special reve- 
rence. 

(fit. 17. State these grounds. 




52 RIGHT INTERPRETATION 

Qi. First, because the times in which they 
lived were in immediate succession from that 
of Christ Himself and His Apostles; next, 
because the vernacular language of many of 
them was that in which the Evangelists and 
Apostles themselves wrote ; next, because of 
their undivided devotion to the ministry of 
the Word; because, also, they possessed and 
had the use of religious and other treatises 
which are now lost; also, because they ha- 
bitually used mutual conference, publicly and 
privately, with one another ; next, on ac- 
count of their piety and sufferings urging and 
requiring them to examine the truth, as they 
valued their highest interests, temporal and 
eternal; and from their needs and prayers for 
Divine Grrace, which we know to have been 
especially shed in abundant supplies upon 
the early Church ; and, lastly, from their 
writings having been approved and held in 
great respect by the Church. 

(El. 18. What inferences do you draw from 
this statement? 

Ql. These considerations show that their 
works are entitled to great respect, especially, 
in a negative sense; i. e., if any doctrine ap- 
pears to have been unknown to them, or to be 
contrary to their sense, as expressed in their 
writings, it may be concluded to be novel, and 
consequently false. 

(Si. 19. But have not modern Expositors 
special advantages, not possessed by the an- 
cient ; and are they not entitled, in certain 
respects, to preference to them l d 



OF THE WORD OF GOD. 53 

21. Modern Expositors have, no doubt, cer- Chap. 
tain advantages. They have the experience 
of the past, whence they may see how error 
has been confuted by truth, which has gained 
in strength and clearness from the contest, 
for "Ex haereticis," says St. Augustine, "as- 
Serta est Catholica :" and thus they learn to 
avoid error and to maintain truth. They 
have the benefit of the advancement of know- 
ledge of languages and criticism, of the dis- 
coveries in science, and of the geographical 
and antiquarian researches of later days. 
But with respect to preference, — both an- 
cient and modern Interpreters have their re- 
spective uses : and in the case of two good 
things, both of which are given us for our use 
by Almighty God, it is unwise to say, " this |<*i- xxxix. 
is worse than that:" our duty is to be thank- 
ful to Him for both, and according to our 
means and opportunities to use them accord- 
ingly. 

<EL 20. I infer from all you have now said 
that you do not allow that there is any one 
living, visible, infallible Judge in controverted 
causes of Faith ? 

2t. There is one visible and infallible 
Judge in such causes, and one only, namely. 
Holy Scripture ; as St. Augustine says, 
" Scriptura sancta sola nescit faflere, nee 
falli :" and to this standard, "To the Law Isa - ▼***• 2°- 
and to the Testimony," all appeals in such 
cases must be made, as St. Optatus and St. 
Augustine said, in their controversies with 
the Donatists, " On earth we can find no 
5* 



54 RIGHT INTERPRETATION 

Part Judge ; we must seek one from heaven ; but 
why from heaven when we have it in the 
Crospel? quid ad coelum, quum habemus in 
Evangelio ? Why do we strive together ? 
Quare de haereditate litigamus? fratres su- 
mus, quare contendimus ? Non sine Testa- 
ments dimisit nos Pater ; sedet Christus in 
coelo ; et contradicitur Testamento ejus — 
Aperi legamus." 

(St. 21. But Scripture, though a visible and 
infallible, is no living Judge, and is not a 
single living Judge necessary ? 

3l. Christ knows best what is necessary 
for His Church ; and He never appointed 
one. If there ever had been such a thing as 
one living Judge, it must have existed in the 
time of the Apostles ; and they never would 
Acts xv. 3, 7. have summoned a Council at Jerusalem, if 
any one living man, and specially any one 
actually present among them when they sum- 
moned it, had possessed authority to decide 
the controversy which occasioned its convoca- 
tion. And it is preposterous to imagine that 
Bishops would have been put to the pains 
of coming together from the most distant 
parts of Christendom to meet in Church Sy- 
nods, in different places, at different times, 
during sa many centuries, if the Church had 
known any thing of any such one living Judge, 
existing in one place. 

(El. 22. But in cases where Greneral Coun- 
cils cannot be summoned, how are litigated 
questions to be settled, and necessary Re- 
forms to be made in the Church, since it can- 
not be by one living Judge ? 



OF THE WORD OF GOD. 55 

Qt. Let each National Church keep itself Chap. 
as close as it can to God's Law : and, where- VII# 
insoever it may have gone astray, (whatever ^~"v~— / 
other Churches may do,) let it amend itself. 
And if, after all, controversies should arise 
and defects exist in it, — which will always be 
the case more or less in every part of the 
Visible Church, even until the Great Day, 
when "the Son of Man shall send forth His Matt. xm. 41. 
angels, and they shall gather out of His king- 
dom all things that do offend and them 
which do iniquity,' ' such things must be re- 
garded by its members as trials of their 
faith, as incitements to watchfulness, fasting, 
and prayer, and as exercises of their Chris- 
tian faith, hope, and desire, calling on them 
to "possess their souls in patience," and toLukexxi.19. 
raise their eyes from the present strifes con- 
fusion, failings, and trials in the Church 
militant on earth, to the future peace, order, 
beauty, and felicity of the Church glorified in 
heaven. 



56 ADMINISTRATION OF SACRAMENTS 




CHAPTER VIII. 

ON PRIVILEGES IN THE CHURCH — DUE ADMI- 
NISTRATION OF THE SACRAMENTS BY A LAW- 
FUL MINISTRY. 

(Si. 1. What other privileges are received 
from God through the medium of the Church ? 
Qt. The Sacraments of Baptism and of the 
Lord's Supper, which are the visible symbola 
Lukex^'l^ an( ^ characteres Ecclesise, the signs, badges, 
Acts ii. 42. an d bonds of the Christian Church. 
Tit. iii. z>\ (El. 2. Why is the Administration and Re- 

ception of the Sacraments necessary ? 

21. Because it has pleased God, in His 
infinite wisdom and mercy to us, to ordain 
them as federal rites wherein the new Cove- 
nant is ratified to us ; and to make them the 
instruments of our incorporation, union, life, 
i cor. xii. 12 and growth, in the Body of Christ ; and be- 
-i4.x. 16, 17. cauS e He has constituted them the proper 
and efficacious means for the conveyance of 
His grace, pardon, and goodness to -us, and 
for the quieting of our consciences, the illu- 
mination of our minds, and the preservation 
of our souls and bodies ; and because He 
John in. 3-5. has made them also to be memorials of His 
MaxkxYi.i6. past pledges of His present, and earnests 
of His futicre love to all who receive them 
worthily ; and because He has appointed them 



BY A LAWFUL MINISTRY. 57 

to be visible symbols and tokens by which Chap. 

the members of Christ show their love for v ' 

each other, and thus edify each other, and ' Y 
strengthen the unity of the body by mutual 
indwelling in Christ; and finally, Because 
our Saviour, Christ Himself, has declared 
tfiem to be necessary to salvation. 

(Q. 3. By whom are the Sacraments ad- 
ministered ? 

21. By persons lawfully called and sent for^hnxx.21, 

that purpose. Matt, xxviii. 

(&. 4. By what name are the Ministers 
of the Sacraments distinguished from those 
to whom they minister ? 

21. They are called x %ijpt,xoL, clerici, clerks, 
or clergy ; and are thus distinguished from 
the other members of the Church, who are 
called jioos, or laity. 

(&. 5. What is the origin of these words ? 

21. The Clergy are so called from x-k^o^ 
a lot or portion, because they are allotted and 
consecrated to God, or because He and His 
Church is their lot and inheritance ; and the 
Laity of the Christian Church are so termed, 
as being the chosen nation and peculiar people 
of God. 

(Si. 6. But how is this assertion of the ne- 
cessity of a call and ordination of special 
persons consistent with the expressions of 
St. Peter to whole congregations, " Ye are a 1 Pet. a. 9. 
chosen generation, a royal priesthood ;" andRev.i.6. 
of St. John, " He hath made us unto our 
God, kings and priests?" Do not these 
words seem to intimate that all Christians 
are priests to God ? 



58 ADMINISTRATION OP SACRAMENTS 

Part 21. Certainly they do. All men, especially 
*• all who are in authority and in eminent sta- 
^~" v ~— lions, as Kings, Nobles, Magistrates, States- 
men, Legislators, Poets, Parents, are in a 
certain sense Priests of God, and are conse- 
crated to His service. In the words of St. 
Augustine, " Christians, whether lay or clergy, 
are priests, for they are all members of the 
one High Priest, Jesus Christ. They are a 
holy Temple of God, and their souls are 
His altars, on which they do sacrifice to 
Him ;" but then the special manifestation of 
God's Word and Sacraments is committed to 
certain persons, who have accordingly, in 
Scripture, particular designations, as being 
Acts xiii. 2. separated for the work whereunto they are 
i3 Cor ' lx * n * called; whence arise the relative duties of 
iThess'.v.'i2 Clergy and Laity which are enjoined in nu- 
Phii •• 29 merous places of Holy Writ ; and " Ecclesia 
iTim.y.iV. non est," says St. Jerome, "quae non habet 
Heb. xm.7. g acer d t eSt " Christ gave not all, but some 
Eph.^'ii!' Apostles, and some Prophets, for the work 
i cor xii 29 °^ ^ e ministry, says St. Paul, and he asks, 
icor'xiv'.m " Are all Apostles? are all Prophets? are all 
James y.u. T eac h ers ?» No ; every one in his own order. 
And St. James would not have directed Priests 
to be sent for, if every one was a Priest ; 
and by such a general interpretation of St. 
Peter's and St. John's words, all degrees, civil 
as well as ecclesiastical, would be confounded; 
for then every one would be not Gnly a Priest, 
but every one would also be a King, On the 
contrary, the expression is itself an evidence 
and proof that special priests as well as $pe- 



BY A LAWFUL MINISTRY. 59 

cial Kings are designated of God ; and its Chap. 
true meaning is, that Christians are to be VIII. 
distinguished, in spiritual things, from the rest ^^^ 
of the world, as Kings and Priests, each in 
their respective functions, are distinguished 
from others who have not their peculiar du- 
ties. 

(St. 7. You spoke of special persons, law- 
fully called and sent ; who are they ? 

&. Those " who are tried, examined, and 
known to have such qualities as are requisite 
for their office, and are also, by public prayer 
and imposition of hands, approved and ap- 
pointed thereto by lawful authority/ ' 

(fii. 8. You mean, therefore, that no man 
may undertake of himself the duties of the 
Christian Ministry ? 

Qt. I do. "No one taketh this honour unto isa. xiix. i. 
himself, but he that is called of God, as was g£'. l is! 
Aaron." Aaron and his sons were appointed f| b xxVdi.i. 
by God to wait on the Priest's office; and^™- ^J:* - 

1 1 • "I XVlll. O-D. 

"the stranger that came nigh was to be put John x.i. 
to death. " A man can receive nothing un- 
less it be given him from above.'' "He that 
entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, 
but climbeth up some other way, the same Acts xix - 14 - 
is a thief and a robber." The sons of Sceva 
who assumed Apostolic functions were over- 
come by the Evil Spirit. And an awful 
warning against any such assumption is con- 
tained in the history of Korah, Dathan and 
Abiram, who were destroyed by God for in- 
vading the priestly office, and of King Uz- 
ziah, who was smitten with leprosy for so 




60 , ADMINISTRATION OF SACRAMENTS 

doing. Nay, more, Uzzah was smitten by 
} God for touching the ark, (which, not being 
32 a Levite, he could not lawfully do,) though 
-34. xTiii/3. he put forth his hand with a good intention 

2Chron. . , . * to 

xxvi.i6.19. to stay It. 

ioES^d£ ®* 9 - But if Aaron was called h 7 God > wh y 

10 - may not a person who believes that he has 

a Divine call take upon him this function ? 
Lev. Tm. l- QV. Aaron was not only called by Crod, but, 
Ecci. xiv. 16*. at God's express command, was visibly or- 
Rom. x. 15. Gained by Moses. And St. Paul asks, " How 
shall they preach except they be sent?" 

(fii. 10. Does the necessity of a due visible 
mission appear from the New Testament ? 



Is. xlvii. 16. 
lxi. 1. 



21. Yes. Even Christ glorified not Him- 
Matt. iii. 16, se ]f ? to be made an High Priest. He did 
Luke iv. is. not enter on His office till He was visibly and 
2i a x."io. ' audibly commissioned to do so. And in the 
jonn\ 32. same way the Twelve and the Seventy were 
Acte°i 24 chosen, called, and sent by Him. 
Lukex.i. (fii. 11. Does this further appear from the 

titles of Christ's Ministers ? 
iTim.ii 7. 3t. Yes. An Apostle ('ArtootciKoj) does not 

John x. 8. . . „ , ■*■ , v , ' . 

t. 43. signify one who cones, but one who is sent ; 

ll^'il'l 1 ' so Ministers are called in Scripture, K^, 
jer°xxm. 2 2i. name ly? Heralds, and npeajfotj, Ambassadors ; 
| 2 - .. that is, they are persons who do not present 
ic$r.iiL5! themselves on their own authority, but who 
2Co 5 r x ^?i8 5 ' come with a commission publicly given them 
lTim.'! 1 ^. D y others ; and their office is named in the 
S.S^. ! Tv 5, New Testament a hiaxovia, uvtwpyla, and oixo- 

Phil.ii. 17. , . ... \' , 

i cor. ix. 17. vopia, that is, a ministry, service, and stew- 
2 oor.^iw. ardship, not an independent function. 

(fii. 12. Since, then, a man cannot take this 



BY A LAWFl L MINISTRY. 61 

office upon himself, but must receive it visibly Chap. 
from some lawful authority, what is that law- VIII. 
ful authority ? j" V- ~' 

21. First, in the beginning, that of Christ xx. 21 . m 
Himself; and then after Him, that of those 2o att * xxvm * 
whom Christ sent, saying unto them, " As ]£fjjl 3 
My Father hath sent Me, even so send I^-. 23 -. 
you:" "and lo, I am with you alway, even v. 22.' ' 
to the end of the ivorld ;" and who, there- 2 Tun * u ' 2 * 
fore, being thus sent, were commissioned to 
send others, in a never-ending succession, as 
Christ, Who sent them, was sent of God. 
Christ was 6 tov ®eov 'Artofsto-ko^ ; the Twelve 
were Christ's Apostles; and every Minister, see above ch. 
lawfully ordained, is an 'Artoatoxos of the Apos- 
tles. 

(Q. 13. Together with a lawful call and 
visible mission, what else is necessary to con- 
stitute a person duly and fully a Minister of 
Christ ? 

21. He must also receive the ordaining Matt, xxtul 
grace of the Holy Spirit of God, investing Joim xx. 21. 
him with the power of dispensing God's word Mitt x. 2 i3. 
and sacraments ; of remitting and retaining Eph * iy - 12 - 
sins ; of praying for God's people, and of 
blessing them in His Name; and this the 
Holy Spirit confers by the hands of the suc- 
cessors of the Apostles, in the Office of Or- 
dination. 



6 



62 ON THE THREE ORDERS OF 




CHAPTER IX. 

ON THE THREE ORDERS OF MINISTERS IN THE 
CHURCH. 

(&. 1. Are all ordained Ministers of equal 
rank and dignity? 

&. No. 

6H. 2. How many degrees are there of 
them ? 

Ql. There are Three Orders in the Chris- 
tian Church, as there were three in the Church 
of the Jews. 

<&. 3. What are they called? 

9i. The orders of Bishops, Priests, and 
Deacons, corresponding to those of High 
Priests, Priests and Levites. 

(Ei. 4. What is the derivation and meaning 
of the word Bishop f 

Ql. It is derived from the Greek 'E^tcV 
xortos, which signifies one who inspects or over- 
looks others, for the sake of guiding, govern- 
ing, and correcting them. 

(El. 5. What is the derivation and meaning 
of the name of the second order ? 
' 21. Priest, or Presbyter, is derived from the 
Greek npccrj&utffpoj, and signifies a superior, 
properly in age, and thence also in worth and 
gravity. 

(El. 6. Whence is the word Deacon derived? 



MINISTERS IN THE CHURCH. 63 Chap. 

IX. 

21. From the Greek &idxovo$, a minister or "^ ^*"~*^ 
servant, from 8^x0, to go through or despatch ; 
and the term Siaxovuv, to serve, is used in the 
Acts of the Apostles (vi. 12) to designate 
their office, which was a holy function, though 
partly concerned about secular matters. 

GH. 7. How long have these Three Orders * 
of Ministers existed in the Christian Church ? 

21. In and from the time of the Holy- 
Apostles. 

(El. 8. How does this appear ? 

21. That there are these Three Orders in 2 mm. La- 
the Church, and that a religious community is 2 Tim. ji. 2. 
not duly and fully a Church without them, is t^™ i m i-9! 5 
evident "from Scripture and ancient au-^^ 1 -^; 
thors;" especially from the writings of St. 8-13. 
Ignatius, the disciple of St. John, and bishop 2 Tim. Iv. 1- 
of Antioch, and" martyr; of St. Poly carp, 8 * 
the disciple and companion of St. John, and 
bishop of Smyrna, and martyr ; of St. Ire- 
nseus, disciple of Polycarp, bishop of Lyons, 
and martyr ; and of St. Cyprian, bishop of 
Carthage, and martyr ; and of other Fathers 
and Doctors of the Christian Church in suc- 
cession, from General and Provincial Synods, 
and from the universal primitive and succes- 
sive practice of the Church. 



64 DIVINE INSTITUTION 



CHAPTER X. 

bishops ; 

Divine Institution of Episcopacy. 

P * RT ©. 1. Whom do Bishops succeed and re- 
^_ ' > _ y present ? 
~^ &. The Holy Apostles. 

(&. 2. Whj r then are they not called Apos- 
tles? 

21. Because in the first Christian age the 
name Apostle described one who had been per- 
Matt. q. 5. sonally sent (aTtoata-Kh'ta) by Christ Himself ; 
MaAxyL 15 ^ was > therefore, reserved to the Twelve 
appointed by him, and was not assumed 
by any of their successors, except St. Mat- 
thias, St. Paul, and St. Barnabas, whose calls 
were of a peculiar kind, (St. Matthias being 
Acts i. 26. chosen by lot, St. Paul being called by Christ 
3VjLi xli * 2 ' Himself, and he and St. Barnabas being sepa- 
rated for their work by special command of 
the Holy Ghost,) and who are thence called 
Apostles in Holy Writ. 

(Q. 3. The successors of the Apostles 
could not, then, it seems, take the name of 
'ATtoato-kos, but why did they assume that of 

"ETtLOxortos ? 

31. Because none was more appropriate 
than Upiscopus on account of its significa- 






X. 

Pa. cis. 8. 



OF EPISCOPACY. 65 

tion before mentioned, and because the term Chap. 
ijuoxoTty had been already used in the Sep 
tuagint version of the Psalms to describe the 
apostleship of Judas, to which St. Matthias 
succeeded ; and because, in the Apostolic age, 
3 Erti6xorto$ was the name of the order imme- 
diately next in rank to that of the Apostles. 
Henceforth, then, 5 E*ctfxo*o$ was applied to 
an overlooker of (many) pastors, having pre- 
viously signified in the Church an overlooker 
of a (single) flock. 

(Si. 4. Had then, before this period, the 
terms Bishop and Presbyter signified the 
same thing ? 

21. No. They never meant the same J Tim. m. 1,2. 
thing, though they sometimes designated the 
same person, who was called 'EniaxoTto^ from 
his office, as inspector of a Christian flock, 
and npeflfj3v*fpoj, from his age and dignity. 

(Si. 5. It appears, then, that the same word 
9 Ertloxo7to$, was employed to designate two 
different offices in two successive ages ? 

21. Not exactly; for even from the be-^^js- 
ginning the word I£ pise opus was applied to 28. 
the highest office in the Church although it iTh£m. 7 i,2. 
did not exclude the second order. 

(St. 6. But is it not somewhat surprising 
that a term ('ETt^xomoj,) which you say did 
not exclude the second order in the first age 
of Christianity, should have afterwards been 
applied exclusively to the first? 

21. No ; there is no more cause for surprise 
than an overlooker of pastors should after- 
wards be specially called EnitsxoTtou when an 
6* 




66 DIVINE INSTITUTION 

overlooker of a flock had been previously 
called so, than that Augustus and all his 
successors in the Roman empire should be 
called Imperatores, when in the age preced- 
ing him, and indeed, in his own age, all vic- 
torious Generals, as Lucullus, Pompey, and 
Mark Antony, had been called Imperatores : 
or that a large combination of provinces 
should be called Dioecesis by and after the 
Emperor Constantine, when, before his time, 
a single province had been termed so. 

(Si. 7. But does not St. Jerome say that, 
even in the Apostolic times, the Churches 
were governed by several Presbyters, who 
were also called Episcopi, antequam instinctu 
diaboli studiain religione fierent, et dicer etur 
in populis, Ego sum Apollo, ego sum Cephse ; 
postquam autem unus quisque eos quos bap- 
tizaverat suos esse putabat, non Christi, turn 
in toto orbe decretum est ut UNUS de Presby- 
teris electus superponeretur ceteris, ad quern 
omnis cura Ecclesise pertineret, et schisma- 
tum semina toller entur ? 

2L Yes, he does ; but in another place he 
says that Bishops are the ordained succes- 
sors of the Apostles ; that St. James was 
Bishop of Jerusalem, immediately after the 
Ascension of Christ; that Episcopacy is an 
Apostolic ordinance; that Presbyters cannot 
ordain; that the safety of the Church con- 
sists in the dignity of its Bishop ; and his 
assertion, just quoted, does, when examined, 
tend rather to confirm the doctrine of the 
Apostolic and Divine institution of Episco- 
pacy. 



OF EPISCOPACY. 67 

(Q. 8. How do you show this ? 

3L We do not deny that in the Apostolic 
age the names JEpiscopi and Presbyteri were 
applied to the same persons ; but then there 
were at that time Bishops also, in our sense 
of the word, namely, the Holy Apostles 
themselves : and (whatever may be alleged 
as the reason for the institution of Episco- 
pacy) the fact and time of its institution are 
the only questions with which we are con- 
cerned. Now in this very passage St. Je- 
rome testifies, that it was " toto orbe decre- 
tum ut unus caeteris superponeretur, ad quern 
omnis Ecclesise cura pertineret." And that 
which was received throughout the whole 
world, and of which the origin does not ap- 
pear, (and which Jerome himself seems to 
ascribe to the age of Apollos and Cephas, that 
is, to the Apostolic age, and, in the case of 
St. James, does, as we have seen, make im- 
mediately consequent on our Lord's Ascen- 
sion,) could not be of human institution, if 
it were only from the rule of St. Augustine, 
" Id quod universa tenet Ecclesia, (as St. Je- 
rome says is the case with Episcopacy,) nee 
Oonciliis institutum, (and Councils all presup- 
pose Bishops, for they consist of them,) sed 
semper retentum, non nisi auctoritate Apos- 
tolica traditum esse rectissime creditur." 

(&. 9. Since then it was both rational and 
probable that, if there was such an individual 
superintendent of pastors as you have de- 
scribed, he should be called an 'E^xo^o*, 
can you prove from Scripture that at the 




68 DIVINE INSTITUTION 

Part close of the Apostolic age there were in fact 
such superintendents besides the Apostles ? 
T ~ t 7* 9t. Yes ; such were St. Timothy and St. 

ifim.v. 17- Titus. They were not Apostles, — not being 
of directly Divine appointment, as all the 
Apostles, including St. Matthias, St. Paul, 
and St. Barnabas were, — they were never so 
called ; and they were not mere Presbyters, 
for they are commanded by St. Paul to or- 
dain, to charge, to rebuke Preachers, and to 
superintend the doctrine and conduct of both 
Titus a. 15. Presbyters and Deacons, and this with all an- 
ihority (peta Ttda^ Irf^oy^,) but Par in pa- 
rem non habet imperium. 

(El. 10. You say that they were not Apos- 
tles ; was then their power Apostolic ? 

21. Yes : their office was similar to, and in 
the place of, that of the Apostles. 

(El. 11. How do you show this ? 
*&*-*• 31. St. Paul tells Titus, that he had left 

him in Crete, that he might perfect the 
things which he (St. Paul himself) had left 
incomplete. 

(El. 12. Does this superintending and gov- 
erning power, resident in one individual, 
appear in any other part of Scripture ? 

Qi. Yes; in the Revelation of St. John, 
where each of the seven Asiatic Churches is 
represented as having a chief pastor, who is 
called by the Holy Spirit the Angel of the 
Church. 

(El. 13. But to ascend higher; does the 
succession of the chief pastors to the Apos- 
tles appear to have been directly authorized 
by Christ ? 



OF EPISCOPACY. 69 

31. It does. The Episcopal government Chap. 
of the Church was originally founded in the x * 
person and office of our blessed Lord Him- v ""~v~— / 
self. 

(Si. 14. How does this appear ? 

&. As follows: Christ being sent by His^ t ^^ 5 
Father, to be the great Apostle, Bishop, and 
Pastor of the Church, as He is called in 
Scripture, and being visibly consecrated to ^ t k s e x i ^ 3 | 2 
that office by the Holy Ghost, sent his Apos- 
tles as His Father had sent Him. He gave 
to them the Holy Ghost as His' Father had;™ 111 **- 21 ' 

% , ' , 22. xvii. 18. 

given to Him ; and commissioned them to ex- 
ecute the same apostolic, episcopal, and pasto- 
ral office, in their own persons, and in that 
of their successors, for the governing of His 211111 -"- 2 - 
Church until His coming again, promising to Matt xxylil 
be with them " alway, even unto the end of 18-26. 
the world." 

(St. 15. Do we read in Scripture of any act 
of the Apostles done with a view to continue 
this succession from themselves ? 

31. Yes : their very first act after the As- Acts i. 20-25. 
cension of Christ was done with a view to 
the appointment of one to take part in the 
ministry of the Apostleship (iftiaxoTttj,) from 
which Judas, by transgression fell, and whose 
office (sTicaxoTtrj,) was to be taken by another. 

(Si. 16. It is justly said, that the best Com- 
mentary upon a law is practice, especially con- 
temporary universal and uninterrupted prac- 
tice. Now how does the practice of the Church 
bear on the present question concerning the 
institution, authority, and obligation of Epis- 
copacy ? 




70 DIVINE INSTITUTION OF EPISCOPACY. 

21. The universal practice of the Church 
of Christ, from its foundation for more than 
fifteen hundred years without interruption, 
shows Episcopacy to be of Divine institution 
and to have been regarded by the Church as 
of inviolable authority. JExitus varidsse de- 
huerat error ; cseterum quod apud multos 
unum invenitur, non est erratum sed tradi- 
tum; et id Dominicum est et verum quod 
prius traditum, id extraneum et falsum quod 
posterius immissum. 

(£l. 17. Does any other form of Church 
Government appear to have existed in any of 
the Apostolic Churches ? 
l cor. xi. 16. Q\, # jfo. " We have no such custom, nor 
the Churches of God." In every case where 
Catalogues of Church Governors are extant, 
the series of pastors is traced back through 
individual and successive (and not through 
several, equal, coexistent, and contemporane- 
ous) Governors, the first of them being some 
Apostle or some disciple of the Apostles ; and 
as we have before said, there is no example 
of a single Church without a Bishop for fif- 
teen centuries after Christ. 

GH. 18. What additional proof is there of 
the Divine institution of Episcopacy from an- 
cient practice ? 

2t. There is a strong confirmation of it 
in the fact, that not only catholics, but also 
heretics and schismatics, differing from the 
Church and from each other in many other 
respects, all agreed in recognising the neces- 
sity of Episcopal Government, with one single 



FUNCTIONS OF BISHOPS. 71 

exception, that of Aerius (of Sebastia, in 
Pont us,) in the fourth century, who, on that 
special account, as well as for other reasons, 
is placed among heretics by the Fathers of 
the Church, and whose doctrine on that point 
was condemned by the Church as sacrile- 
gious. 

(&. 19. What are the words in which 
Hooker concludes his argument upon this 
subject ? 

21. "Let us not fear," he says, "to be 
herein bold and peremptory, and if any thing 
in the Church's government, surely the first 
institution of Bishops was from heaven, even 
of God, the Holy Ghost was the Author of 
it." 




CHAPTER XI. 

FUNCTIONS OF BISHOPS. 

(El. 1. When you say that Bishops are the 
successors of the Apostles, do you mean that 
they succeed them in all their Apostolic func- 
tions ? 

21. No : some of the functions of the Apos- 
tles were ordinary and permanent in their 
nature, such as those of preaching, adminis- 
tering the Sacraments, feeding the flock of 
Christ, giving attendance to reading, to ex- 
hortation, to doctrine, exercising discipline, 




72 FUNCTIONS OF BISHOPS. 

judging controversies, conferring with each 
other in Councils and Synods, confirming the 
baptized, ordaining (xadiotdvcu, zzipotovslv) and 
superintending ministers. Other functions 
were extraordinary and temporary, such as 
healing the sick, casting out devils, and speak- 
ing with tongues. 

Bishops succeed the Apostles in their ordi- 
nary, but not in their extraordinary offices. 

(St. 2. You speak of Ordinations — do you 
intend to say that no one can confer Holy 
Orders except Bishops ? 

21. Yes; "cases of inevitable necessity 
excepted, none may ordain but only Bishops :" 
and all other ordinations, whether by Presby- 
ters or any one else, have ever been regarded 
by the Church as invalid. 

(St. iii. Is there any authority from " Holy 
Scripture or ancient writers/' that in cases of 
" inevitable necessity," ordinations by pres- 
byters, or any persons other than Bishops, 
are valid? 

21. There is none whatever. 

<&. iv. The exception, then, which you 
introduced into your last answer but one, is 
a modern opinion ; when did it take its rise ? 

21. At the time of the Reformation. The 
words which I have quoted were those of 
Hooker. 

(fit. v. What are the conditions which 
Hooker requires to the validity of such ordi- 
nations ? 

21. First, extreme necessity; second, un- 
willingness to depart from the usual mode of 



FUNCTIONS OF BISHOPS. 73 

ordination ; and third, the impossibility of Chap. 
obtaining the assistance of a Bishop. XI - 

(Q. vi. Can his opinion be fairly extended 
to the case of persons ordained in a country 
in which there are Bishops, who impose no 
sinful terms of communion, or ordination? 

Ql. Certainly not; for there is, in such a 
case, plainly no impossibility of obtaining the 
assistance of a Bishop. 

(St. vii. Suppose that there are in such a 
country organizations of Christians, who have 
among them no Bishops, or none w T ho have 
been validly ordained; are their ordinations 
valid within the exception of Hooker ? 

21. Certainly not; for, by the supposition, 
the Bishops require no unlawful terms of com- 
munion or ordination* The separation of the 
supposed bodies, frtfm such Bishops, must 
therefore, be causeless, and of course, schis- 
matical, and sinful. The only motive for de- 
clining, under such circumstances, the ordina- 
tion of the Bishops, must be the preservation 
of such schismatical bodies, and their pecu- 
liar doctrines. The peculiar doctrines must 
be either true or false, important or unim- 
portant. If true and important, they must 
be the same with those of the Church ; which 
by the supposition, imposes no unlawful terms 
of communion. If false, they can furnish no 
just reason, for separation ; neither can they 
if true, but unimportant; for it is plainly 
schism, "to rend the Body of Christ," for 
trifles. There can then be no sufficient rea- 
son for perpetuating such bodies. It is their 
7 




74 FUNCTIONS OF BISHOPS. 

duty, and the duty of every member of each 
of them, to unite with the Church. There is 
no impossibility of obtaining the assistance 
of a Bishop at their ordinations, but what 
arises from their refusal so to do ; an impedi- 
ment which they can and ought to remove. 

(fit. viii. But may not their honest error, 
excuse their not uniting with the Church, and 
so give validity to their ordinations ? 

Qt. Their honest error may, and we hope 
will, excuse them from the punishment of 
the sin of schism ; but it cannot alter the 
nature of things. The validity of ordinations 
depends upon the truth of God's ordinance, 
and not upon the error of man. A forged 
note, or defective title, does not become valid 
because it is passed by persons ignorant of 
the forgery or defect. 

(El. ix. Hooker says, " that in case of ne- 
cessity the ordinary institution of God,, hath 
given oftentimes and may give place." To 
what cases does he allude ? 

2i. To the cases of the continental and 
Scottish communions ; for there are no more 
ancient cases. 

(&. x. Are the facts of the Divine appoint- 
ment of Episcopacy and of its universality 
clear ? 

Qt. Yes, and Hooker himself acknowledges 
the fact in many places. 

<d. xi. What is supposed to have been 
Hooker's reason for adopting the theory, that 
" inevitable necessity" could render an ordi- 
nation, not performed by a Bishop valid ? 



FUNCTIONS OF BISHO 73 

SI. It is supposed that he was influenced Chap. 
by regard to the case of foreign Protestants. 
This feeling induced him to recoil from the 
consequences of his own principles. 

(Q. xii. Has the Church in England or 
America pronounced any judgment on the 
case of these foreign communions ? 

Ql. They have not pronounced any such 
judgment by a formal public act, but their 
authorities universally require those who have 
been ministers in such communions, to be 
ordained by a Bishop before they officiate 
within the pale of the Church; thereby over- 
ruling the opinion of Hooker. 

(&. 13. In maintaining the necessity of 
Episcopal Government, are we not guilty of 
want of charity by condemning those who are € 
without it ? 

21. Veritas est maxima caritas ; Truth 
is the greatest charity. It is no charity to 
connive at error, and to suppress truth ; but 
it is charity to endeavour to remove error, 
and to maintain and communicate truth. 
Therefore, our duty is, if we enjoy Episcopal 
Government, to thank God for it ; and to 
pray to Him that they who have it not, 
whether from necessity, real or supposed, 
from inadvertence, indifference, or deliberate 
purpose, may at length become able and will- 
ing to receive it ; and we are bound to be 
ready and desirous, as far as w r e are able, to 
encourage and promote such reception. 



76 OF BISHOPS AS DIOCESANS, 



CHAPTER XII. 

OF BISHOPS AS DIOCESANS, METROPOLITANS, 
AND PATRIARCHS. 

j RT <B1. 1. You have spoken of Bishops in 
general, and of their institution and offices ; 
is not the performance of their duty, indi- 
vidually, and the exercise and application of 
their powers, restrained habitually in Chris- 
tian States by laws ecclesiastical and civil, 
within certain limits? 
31. Yes. 

(El. 2. And do not Bishops bear certain 
titles according to the limits within which 
their functions are exercised ? 
31. They do. 

(El. 3. Can you give any instances of such 
restrictions from Holy Scripture ? 
Matt. xv. 24. <2V, Yes. Our Lord Himself says, He was 
Hoi. xi.i3. not "sent but to the lost sheep of the House 
xv^xi 7 * of Israel." St. Peter was specially the Apos- 
^Gai. L 19, tie of the circumcision, and St. Paul of the 
i Tim. i. 3. Gentiles. St. James had special jurisdiction 
BeAao. at Jerusalem, St. Timothy at Ephesus, St. 
Titus at Crete; and the seven Asiatic 
Churches had each their own Bishop re- 
spectively. 

(El. 4. Does this principle of distribution 



METROPOLITANS, AND PATRIARCHS. 77 

and restriction appear to have been generally Chap. 
received in the Church in ancient times ? , XII# 

Qt. Yes : and there were certain circum- 
stances of a providential nature which ren- 
dered the uniform reception of it very easy 
and natural. 

(*H. 5. What were these ? 

31. The civil divisions of tlue Roman em- 
pire, that is to say, of the greater part of 
the civilized world, in the early ages of 
Christianity, were admirably adapted to, and 
prepared for the application of this distribu- 
tive system and economy of Church govern- 
ment, throughout the whole extent of the 
Roman sway. 

(&. 6. You mean, that the system of civil 
government invited the application of a 
similar system of ecclesiastical polity ? 

2t. Yes : and this aptitude was recognised 
by General Councils of the Church, and made 
by them the groundwork of their own legis- 
lation; so that, when the empire became 
Christian, (i. e., early in the fourth century,) 
the lines of the ecclesiastical map coincided 
very nearly with those of the civil chart of 
the whole empire. 

(&. 7. As, then, at that time the Ea&tern 
Empire consisted, politically, of seven dis- 
tricts called Dioceses (Siolxtjgus,) and seven 
also composed the Western, there were, I sup- 
pose, seven ecclesiastical districts coinciding 
with them in the East and seven in the West 
also? 

7* 




78 OF BISHOPS AS DIOCESANS, 

21. Yes ; and these ecclesiastical districts 
were also termed Dioceses. 

©. 8. And as in these fourteen dioceses 
there were altogether about one hundred and 
eighteen minor territorial divisions called Pro- 
vinces (^ap^'at,) so there were as many sub- 
divisions in the Church? 

21. Yes ; and these ecclesiastical sub-divi- 
sions were also termed Provinces. 

(&. 9. And as in each province there were 
several cities, with their respective precincts 
(rtapotxuu) attached to them, so there were 
several Chief Churches, each having its own 
territorial range allotted to it ? 

21. There were ; and these too were called 
rtapoixicu, Paroeciee, which word in English has 
now descended to describe a Parish, from 
signifying what we now term a Diocese ; as 
SiolxYiGis has also descended to designate a 
Diocese, from signifying, as it once did, a 
combination of several Dioceses. 

(&. 10. And now, to ascend in an inverted 
order, what, first, were the rulers of these 
Chief Churches called ? 

21. Bishops. 

(Q,. 11. Could there be more than one 
Bishop in a city ? 

21. No ; there could not : this was spe- 
cially prohibited by the laws of the Church, 
and censured by them as schismatical ; and a 
second Bishop in a city is regarded by them 
as no Bishop. 

(St. 12. What were the Episcopal Rulers 
of the Provinces styled ? 



METROPOLITANS, AND PATRIARCHS. 79 

21. Metropolitans, (Ecclesiastical Governors Chap. 
of the mother city ^rpoTtox^,) and sometimes ***• 
Archbishops, though this latter title was more 
generally applied to a still more dignified ec- 
clesiastical office ; and all were called Apos- 
tolici. 

<&. 13. And what were those of the Dioceses 
called? 

21. Patriarchs, Exarchs, Archbishops. 

<&. 14. So that there were, on the whole, 
fourteen Patriarchs in the Roman Empire ? 

21. Yes. 

(©. 15. We have before seen what are the 
functions of a Bishop ; what next is the office 
of a Metropolitan ? 

21. To consecrate or confirm his suffragan 
Bishops, and no one could be ordained a 
Bishop in his province without his consent 
and approbation, and any such ordination 
was null and void ; to receive appeals, and 
decide controversies among the Bishops of 
his province, either by himself, or by com- 
mission, or by reference to a Provincial Synod ; 
to convoke and to preside in Provincial 
Synods, (generally summoned twice a year,) 
which all his Suffragans were bound to at- 
tend; to give to his Suffragans literw for- 
matee when going into foreign parts, and to 
publish imperial decrees on ecclesiastical mat- 
ters. 

<EL 16. What is the office of a Patriarch ? 

21. To ordain or confirm the Metropolitans 
of his Dioecesis or Patriarchate; to convoke 
them to Synods, which they were obliged to 




ans. 13, 18. 



80 OF BISHOPS AS DIOCESANS, ETC. 

attend ; to receive appeals from the Metro- 
politans and from the Synods in his juris- 
diction ; to communicate imperial decrees to 
his Metropolitans. 

(El. 17. Were any of the cities, in which the 
fourteen Patriarchs resided, superior in civil 
dignity to the rest ? 

31. Yes, three: Home, Alexandria, and 
Antioch. 

(St. 18. And were the Patriarchs of these 
superior in ecclesiastical rank to the other 
eleven ? 
S^Tir 3i. They were not higher in order, (for 
all Patriarchs possess co-ordinate and inde- 
pendent authority,) but they had precedence 
of the others in place. 

(&. 19. And was this precedence liable 
to change ? 

3i, Yes: it was. If a city rose or de- 
clined in civil power and importance, then, 
after mature consideration of the circum- 
stances of the case, its ecclesiastical prece- 
dence was modified. Thus, for instance, the 
Bishop of Constantinople, from not being a 
Patriarch at all, was raised, A. D. 381, un- 
der Theodosius the Great, to the dignity of 
the second among the fourteen Patriarchs. 

(St. 20. By what process were these varia- 
tions effected ? 

31. It was unlawful for a Bishop to take 
any steps to obtain the elevation of his own 
see; but it was competent to a General Coun- 
cil, convoked by the Emperor, to deliberate, 
and decide, with the imperial sanction, on 
questions of this nature. 



POWER OF THE KEYS. 81 

(Q. 21. It appears, then, that while the Chap. 
Episcopal Office is of Divine institution, and 
cannot, in its spiritual nature and ministra- 
tions, be affected by any human laws, the ac- 
tual exercise of authority of Bishops, as Dio- 
cesans, Metropolitans, and Patriarchs, may 
depend, for its distribution and apportionment, 
upon secular circumstances, and be subject to 
modifications from civil authority after eccle- 
siastical consultation ? 

2L Certainly. The history of the Church 
affords many proofs and examples of this. 
By the order of God's Providence in the 
world, kingdoms are augmented and dimi- 
nished, they are transferred from one sceptre 
to another, as He wills in His supreme wis- 
dom and power ; and the bounds of ecclesias- 
tical jurisdiction have been usually modeled 
accordingly. 



CHAPTER XIII. 

PRIVILEGES Of THE CHURCH. 

Discipline. — Power of the Keys. 

CI. 1. We have spoken of the Word of God, 
and of the ministration of the Word and Sa- 
craments ; what other privilege must we next 
notice as possessed by the Church ? 




82 DISCIPLINE. 

21. That of Discipline. 

(St. 2. What is this power of exercising 
Church Discipline usually called ? 

21. It is usually termed by divines the 
Power of the Keys, of which it is one main 
and primary part. 

(Si. 3. Whence did it receive this name ? • 
Matt.xvi.i9. 21. From the words of Christ to St. Peter, 
and in him to all Presbyters : " I will give to 
thee the Keys of the kingdom of heaven/ ' 

(Si. 4. You say, "in St. Peter to all Pres- 
byters ;" how does this appear? 
K?«. XTiiL ^' From foe fact, that fhe power which 
joim xx. 23. our Lord here gave to St. Peter, He gave to 
all the Apostles, and to the Church generally : 
and this is further apparent from the uni- 
versal language and practice of the Church, 
according to which all Presbyters have ever 
used this power. 

(St. 5. In what respects are keys an em- 
blem of ecclesiastical authority ? 

21. Keys are wont to be given to stewards, 
Rev.Yis. 22 ' treasurers, warders, and other officers, do- 
jV' ^ X 24 1 ' mes ti c an( l civil, as badges of trust and power. 
The proper use of keys is to open, to admit, 
to shut in or shut out, and again to re-admit : 
and so Christ has given to His Ministers the 
power, in subordination to Himself, of admit- 
ting to the Kingdom of Heaven, of excluding 
from it, and of re-admitting to it ; and this is 
what is meant, when it is said that they have 
from Christ the poiver of the Keys. 

(Si. 6. You speak of admitting to the King- 
dom of Heaven; when so speaking, what do 
you mean by the Kingdom of Heaven ? 



POWER OF THE KEYS. 83 

21. I mean, first, the Visible Church, or Chap. 
the Kingdom of Grace; and, secondly, that. XI11 - 
to which it leads the faithful Christian, — r~^ 
namely, the Invisible Church or the Kingdom 
of Glory. 

(St. 7. How do Christ's Ministers admit 
persons into the kingdom of heaven in the 
former sense ? 

31. By the Ministry of the Word of God, 
that is, by Preaching ; and by Baptism. • * 

(fit. 8. How do they exclude from the king- 
dom of heaven ? 

21. By Church censures, after solemn in- \ §£;. \ |j 5, 
vestigation, trial, and admonition, and spe- 2 Tim - * 17 - 
cially by the judicial sentence of excommu- 
nication. 

(El. 9. What are the intents and ends of 
Church censures ? 

21. With respect to" Christ, the ends and ]fZk X xl°ii. 
aims of Church censures are, to maintain 26.xiiv. 23. 

TT . , . , , ^n., , Dent, xx vn. 

His honour ; with respect to the Church, to 13. 
preserve her holiness, purity, and unity ; with 2 ( chron. ' 
respect to offenders, to warn them by a ^^-icot. 1 v.'4-7. 
announcement of the final judgment, to in- 1 cor. to 9- 
spire them with godly sorrow, to the intent 1 Tim. i. 20. 
that "they may learn not to blaspheme,'' 
and "that their spirits may be saved in the 
day of the Lord;" and with respect to all 
others, to deter them from similar offences. 
For, Impunuas semper ad deteriora invitat, 
and, Minatur innocentibus qui parcit no^en- 
tibus. 

(St. 10. What further, is the true charac- • 
ter of Church censures ? 




84 DISCIPLINE. 

Qt* They are acts of charity to the offender 
f and to others ; and the omission of them, 
when they ought to be exercised, is an act of 
injury and cruelty. Knowing God's wrath 
againt sin, the Church must censure it. Ter- 
reo, quia timeo, is her motto, and Si perdo, 
pereo. 

(St. 11. Is it, then, to be considered a mat- 

HebfxTsL* ter of choice with the Ministers of Christ 

whether they will exercise such discipline or 

no? 

MattxYiii. " 21. No. Christ neither said nor did any 

Markyi.7- thing in vain. When He said, "If he will 

Liikeix.i-6. not hear the Church/ ' He ordered the 

i Tkn 4 v. 20. Church to speak ; and when He gave the 

Titu?'ii iv i5 2 ' Apostles power for the government of His 

Rev. ii.'i4,' Church, He commanded them to exercise it; 

and, accordingly, St. Titus and St. Timothy 

are commanded by St. Paul to rebuke with 

all authority ; and the Bishops of Pergamus 

and Thyatira are severely reproved by St. 

John for suffering false doctrines and corrupt 

practices in their Churches. Non regit, says 

St. Augustine, qui non corrigit. 



ABSOLUTION. 85 



CHAPTER XIV. 

PRIVILEGES IN THE CHURCH. 

Absolution. 

(Si. 1. You spoke of re-admission to the Q*J£* 

Visible Church or Kingdom of Grace; and, v * 

secondly, by its means, to the Invisible Church mm * y ^ m 
or Kingdom of Grlory ; how do the Minis- 
ters of Christ re-admit offenders into the 
Church or Kingdom of Heaven, both Visible 
and Invisible ? 

21. By disposing them to repentance by 
application of the salutary medicine of the 
promises to penitence, and threats against sin, 
revealed in the Word of God, and thus pro- 
ducing compunction and contrition in them ; 
then by declaring, as God's heralds, His 
readiness to pardon all who truly repent and 
believe in Him; then, by pronouncing their 
pardon and restoring them, on their repent- 
ance and faith, and confession of sins, through 
the ministry of reconciliation, which has been 
appointed and entrusted to them as Ministers 2 cor. y. 19. 
in the Church of God. Galyi * :L 

(El. 2. By what other figure beside that of 
opening SLiid shutting by the Keys does Christ 
describe the exercise of Church authority ? 
8 




86 ABSOLUTION. 

31. By that of linding and loosing. 
" Whosesoever sins ye remit," says He to 
His Apostles, "they are remitted; and 
whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained." 
(CI. 3. Have men then the power of ab- 
solving their fellow-men from sin committed 
against God ? 
Mark ii. 7. ^- No ; not originally and of them- 
imkev.21. selves, but only derivatively and minister^ 
Kev.iii.7. ally : for "Who can forgive sins but God 
alone?" They no more give pardon to the 
sinner, than the Physician gives health to the 
sick, or the Judge gives release to the ac- 
cused : but they apply the means appointed 
and given by Grod for its attainment. 

(El. 4. Would it not then be more reve- 
rential to God to reserve the office of remit- 
ting sins to Him alone? 

21. Obedience to God is true reverence. 
It would be grievous disrespect to Him, and 
great wrong to His heritage, to rescind and 
refuse His gifts. The Church shows her 
reverence to God, by obeying Him, and by 
using them; i. e., by remitting and retaining 
sins. 

GH. 5. But if no one can forgive sins but 
God, how can men be said to bind or loose ? 
31. The Priest is like a civil Judge, who 
does not sit on the judicial tribunal to make 
laws, but to administer them. He does not 
pronounce sentence of forgiveness, in his own 
name, or on his own authority, but in that 
of God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, 
and upon the conditions of repentance and 



ABSOLUTION. 87 

faith prescribed by Christ, and required and Chap. 
ascertained after careful investigation by the v * 
Priest in the exercise of his ministry. The v 
penitent must resort to the Priest, and the 
Priest must examine, exhort, and make trial 
of his sincerity. Christ's power is here wvto- ***■ * 43 - 
xparopt**?, or imperial ; the Priest's is 5taxo-2i.' 
pixy, or ministerial. It is Christ who raises Acts m. 19. 
the sinner from the death of sin ; but when j h°n xl' 43' 
He has raised him by His Spirit, Hi^ word, 44 - 
or His ministry, He further says to His Mi- 
nisters, " Loose him and let him go." 

(&. 6. Are then all who are absolved by 
Christ's minister pardoned by Christ ? or are 
all they who are condemned by Christ's 
minister condemned by Christ ? 

Qt. No ; a right sentence is the only one Matt - ▼*■ 6 - 
which Christ has authorized, and the only 
one which He will ratify, by giving it vali- 
dity, spiritually and internally. " Clavis po- 
testatis nihil operatur sine clave scientiw." 
The key of knowledge or discretion is ne- 
cessary to give effect to that of power. No 
one can be admitted through the door of Par- 
don, who has not passed through that of Peni- 
tence. Christ alone "openeth, and no man Rev. m. 7. 
shutteth ; and shutteth, and no man open- 
eth;" and He turns the key in the hand of 
His minister only when it is moved aright. 

(&. 7. If this be so, is not the sentence 
of the Priest superfluous ? 

21. No ; for God, in this as in other cases, J32"iPr. T ' 
is pleased to work by means, and to use the 
agency of His creatures, especially of men, as 




S3 ABSOLUTION. 

instruments in conferring His benefits upon 
other men ; and though His power is not tied 
to means, yet, when He has appointed certain 
means for dispensing His grace, our salva- 
tion is restricted to the due and reverent use 

Acts ii. 38. of them. He remits the punishment of original 

R^m/yi. 2-7. sin by means of the Sacrament of Baptism ; 
and in the case of actual sin, He confers the 
grace of His own pardon by the instru- 
mentality of priestly Absolution, ordinarily 
and where it may be had, and whenever justly 
pronounced and duly received ; and thus He 
makes repentance available to the true peni- 
tent, through the declaration and pronuncia- 
tion of pardon by the Minister of Christ, act- 
ing by His authority, at His command, and 
by His power. Absolution does not give re- 
pentance, but makes it effectual; as the 

John 2d. 43, loosing of Lazarus did not give him life, but 
the full and free use of it. 

(&. 8. What are the effects* produced by 
Absolution, as respects the relation of the 
person absolved to the Visible Chureh ? 

21. First, a declarative one; for, even 
though the penitent sinner may, indeed, be 
pardoned by God without Absolution, yet he 
is not regarded so to be in the eye of the 

L&y. xiii. 17- (Jfmrch without the sacerdotal declaration of 

Mitt 2 ' m 4 ^ > J ust as ^ e * e P ers amon g tne Jews, when 
Lukex?iU4. healed, were not regarded as clean, and re- 
stored as such to society, till they had been 
pronounced to be clean by the Priest. 

(SL 9. Is not some other visible effect pro- 
duced by Absolution ? 



ABSOLUTION. 89 

21. Yes. When a person under Church Chap. 
censures is, on his repentance, reconciled to XIV - 
the Church by Absolution, he is restored to v ^"^ w 
a participation in the Holy Communion, and 
in the other means of grace in the Church, 
which is the Depository of Grace as well as 
the Souse of Discipline. 

(EL 10. These are visible effects ; but what 
influence has absolution on a man's relation 
to the Invisible Church? 

21. The visible effects lead to invisible 
results, which follow, as we have seen, from 
the right use of the means of grace in the 
Church; but, in addition to the grace con- 
veyed by these means, the true penitent, for 
whose benefit Absolution was mainly in-Lukevii.4^ 
tended, will derive great spiritual comfort and 
assurance from it. 

<EL 11. In what respects ? 

2i. First, in obeying God, by using the £ 7 uke xxiv - 
ordinance which God has appointed for his 2 cor. v. ia- 
good. Next, he will receive aid and en- 
couragement in his own supplications for par- 
don and grace, from the further co-opera- 
tion of the prayers of God's Minister, and 
of His Church, that his sins may be for- 
given, and his fidelity confirmed ; and he will 
feel his scruples removed, and his faith, hope, 
and love to God, increased by an assurance 
of pardon from God, delivered to him by 
His ambassador, authorized and commanded 
to act in His Name. And thus he is openly 
and effectually re-admitted by Absolution 
into the Kingdom of Heaven. 
8* 




90 ABSOLUTION. 

(St. xii. Is there any difference in princi- 
ple between the Churches in England and 
America on the subject of Absolution ? 

31. There can be none ; because the Ame- 
rican Church has declared, in her Preface 
to her Book of Common Prayer, " that this 
Church is very far from intending to depart 
from the Church of England in any essential 
point of doctrine, discipline or worship ; or 
further than local circumstances require." 

(St. xiii. Is there any difference in prac- 
tice? 

21. Yes ; the English Church encourages, 
and the American Church discourages, the 
practice of private Absolution. 

(Si. xiv. How does that appear ? 

21. In the exhortation to receive the Holy 
Communion, the Church of England expressly 
encourages persons who cannot quiet their 
own consciences, to seek the benefit of Abso- 
lution ; this the American Church omits. In 
the English office for the Visitation of the 
Sick, that Church provides a form of Abso- 
lution, which was formerly directed to be used 
on all occasions of private Absolution, which 
the American omits. 

(St. xv. Does the American Church then con- 
demn all private Absolution ? 

21. No, for in her office for the Visitation 
of Prisoners, she directs it. 

(St. xvi. How do penitents receive the be- 
nefit of Absolution in the American Church ? 

21. By admission to the Holy Communion. 

(St. xvii. Does the Holy Communion include 
Absolutic ° 



91 

21. Yes. Absolution is nothing but the Chap. 
remission of the sins of the individual penitent ^ * • 
absolved; that is, the application to his case 
of the merits of our Blessed Saviour. The 
Holy Communion, which the Church calls the 
most comfortable Sacrament of the Body and 
Blood of Christ and in which she declares 
that the bread broken is a partaking of the 
Body of Christ, and the cup blessed is a par- 
taking of the Blood of Christ, is the ap- 
pointed means of conveying to individuals 
11 remission of our sins and all other benefits 
of His passion." 

d. xviii. Has the American Church the 
right to regulate this matter ? 

21. Certainly ; it is one of those matters 
of traditions and ceremonies which may be 
regulated by every particular Church. 



CHAPTER XV. 

PRIVILEGES IN THE CHURCH. 

Sacerdotal Intercession and Benediction. 

(Si. 1. What other benefits, besides those 
already considered, of doctrine, the Sacra- 
ments, and the exercise of the keys, do we 
derive from God through the ministry of the 
Church ? 



92 SACERDOTAL INTERCESSION 

Part Qt. Those of sacerdotal Intercession (I**7vf*$) 

K ^and Benediction (rixoyla.) 

^ (£l. 2. You speak of sacerdotal Interces- 

sion; what do you understand by that term? 
Qt. I mean the act of the Minister pray- 
ing for the people, and presenting their 
prayers to God. 

©,. 3. What authority have we for believing 
that the prayers of special persons, as of 
Christian Ministers, have any peculiar efficacy 
with God? 

9L The authority of God's own Word, and 
the records therein contained of the Patri- 
archal, Mosaic, and Christian Dispensations. 
(Si. 4. To speak, first, of the efficacy of sa- 
cerdotal Intercession in Patriarchal times, 
can you give examples of it from Holy writ ? 
job'S'V 7, 3U Yes. God says to Abimelech, that 
i.4,5. jj e wou ld heal him, when Abraham had 
prayed for him, "for he is a prophet." He 
job i. 3 ^' sa ys to Job's friends, " My servant Job shall 
pray for you, for him will I accept." Abra- 
ham and Job in the Patriarchal dispensation 
were not only Fathers but Priests, the priest- 
hood in that dispensation being in the first- 
born of each family in hereditary succession. 
t&. 5. Have we further evidence of the 
efficacy of sacerdotal Intercession in the 
Mosaic Dispensation also ? 
Num.xTi.48. 2V. Yes; Aaron the Priest stood between 
i Kings km. the dead and the living, (as Moses com- 
manded him by God's order,) and the plague 
was stayed. The Lord says by the Prophet 
Joel, " Let the Priests' the Ministers of the 



AND BENEDICTION. 93 

Lord, weep between the porch and the altar, Chap. 
and let them say, Spare thy people, Lord, xv - 
.... and then will the Lord pity His peo- v *"~y-~ / 
pie." 

CI. 6. But have we any evidence of the 
special virtue of Priestly Intercession under 
the Christian Dispensation ? 

QC. Yes; St. James says, " Is any sick Jam es ▼• 14 » 
among you ? let him call for the Elders of the Acts vi. 4. 
Church, and let them pray over him : and 
the prayer of faith shall save the sick : and 
if he have committed sins, they shall be for- 
given him." And in the Book of Revelation, 
the four-and-twenty Elders fall down before 
the Lamb, having " golden vials full of odours," ^7- *• *-, 

\ ft i • i i n ' vm. 15. 24. 

or incense, ) " which are the prayers of saints, coi. it. 12. 
So that Priests pray with and for the peo- r,xiv ' 
pie, and "it is the office of the Holy Spirit 
to set apart persons for the duty of the 
Ministry, ordaining them to intercede between 
God and his people, and send up prayers to 
God for them." 

(Gt. 7. But is not all Priestly Intercession 
superseded and taken away by the Interces- 
sion of Christ ? 

31. There is, indeed, to us but One Media- g**^* 
tor between God and man, Christ Jesus; and 1 Tim. u. 6. 
all intercessions are available only by and Acts Yin.' 24." 
through Him ; but the intercession of His 1X * u ' 
Ministers, acting in His name, and by His 
authority and appoiniment, may be consi- 
dered to be, in a certain sense, His act and 
His Intercession. 

(fil. 8. You spoke of Sacerdotal Benediction, 
what do you intend by this expression ? 




94 SACERDOTAL INTERCESSION 

21. I mean the act of the Bishop or Priest 
( presenting persons to God by Prayer, and 
thus being an act of Intercession, (of which 
we have already spoken,) and imploring and 
pronouncing His blessing upon them. 

(St. 9. Have then any particular persons a 
special power of conveying blessings from 
God to men ? 

21. Yes. It has pleased God that certain 
individuals, as Sis Ministers, by virtue of 
their office and appointment from Him, and 
of the ordaining grace of the Holy Spirit, 
should communicate His blessings which are 
given by Him through the ministry of man 
to all who by faith and love have the capacity 
of receiving them. 

(El. 10. Can you give Examples of this 
being the case from the Old Testament ? 
Gen. xiT.is, <£. Yes ; Melchizedeck, the type of Christ, 
Heb.Yii.i- blessed Abraham. "The Lord spake unto 
Num.vi. 22, Moses, saying, Speak unto Aaron and unto 
Ecci.i.2o,2i.his sons, saying, On this wise ye shall bless 
the children of Israel, saying unto them, The 
Lord bless thee and keep thee : the Lord 
make His face shine upon thee, and be 
gracious unto chee : the Lord lift up His coun- 
tenance upon thee, and give thee peace. 
And they shall put My Name upon the chil- 
dren of Israel ; and I will bless them" And 
Dent. xxi. 5. again, "The priests, the sons of Levi, shall 
ichron." come near ; for them the Lord thy God hath 
xxm * 13, chosen to bless in the Name of the Lord." 

<SL 11. Can you give similar Examples 
from the New Testament ? 



AND BENEDICTION. 95 

Ql. Yes. Our Lord thus charged both Chap. 
His Apostles and his seventy Disciples, x ^- 
" Into whatsoever house ye enter, first say, s— ~v~-^ 
Peace be to this house. And if the son of Luke*.' 6.' 
peace be there, your peace shall rest upon Jw fj. '&.' 
it; if not, it shall turn to you again/ ' And*^ r 20 : 3 
Christ says, " Peace I leave with you, Mygai. i.k 
peace I give unto you." And in conformity 2 cor.xiii.11. 
with these words the Apostles of Christ im-^Thestm 23 ' 
parted their benediction to individual Chris- \% im , L 2 . 
tians and Christian Churches, not only by 2 Tim. i. 2. 
word of mouth, but in their letters also. pm.V 

(Kt. 12. By what significant action has the 
communication of spiritual grace and blessing 
to single individuals been always accompa- 
nied in the Church ? 

Qt. By laying on of hands upon the head 
of the recipient of the benediction. 

(Si. 13. In what rites and offices of the 
Church is it imparted in this manner ? 

Qt. In the Confirmation of those who have 
been baptized, — wherein spiritual weapons 
are given to those w T ho enlisted themselves as* 
soldiers of Christ at their baptism; — in the 
reception or re-admission of reconciled sin- 
ners ; and in the making, ordaining, and con- 
secrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. 

($H. 14. You have spoken of the sacerdotal 
benediction of persons; have we any Scrip- 
tural authority for the blessing of particular 
things also ? 

21. Yes. St. Paul says, " The cup of bless- 
ing which we bless, is it not the Communion 
of the blood of Christ?" hence in the Sacra- icor. x.i6. 



96 SACERDOTAL INTERCESSION 

Part ment of the Lord's Supper the Priest lays 
v I " his hand on the elements, when he offers up 
^^^^^^the prayer of Consecration. 

(El. 15. You have given Scriptural examples 
of the efficacy of Sacerdotal Intercession and 
Benediction how, further, does this efficacy 
appear from the nature and constitution of 
the Church of Christ ? 

21. The Christian Church is One Spiritual 
Body, and its members being joined together 
in this One Body, all their solemn public acts 
partake of this character of Unity ; and one of 
the chief of those acts is the making of their 
wants known to God, which is Prayer ; an- 
other is the reception of His grace, by Bless- 
Matt. y. 24. i n g« Accordingly, Christ Himself has declared 
xyiii. 19, 20. th a t there is special efficacy in united Prayer ; 
and for the maintenance and public exhibition 
of this unity in the sacred assemblies of the 
Actsii.1. Church, God has appointed certain Persons 
to be Orators for the People, who are, as it 
were, Angeli ascendentes et deseendentes, 
messengers ascending to Him with Prayer 
from the people, and descending from Him 
with Blessing to them. And if Unity be the 
divinely appointed character of the Church, 
God will assuredly bless those means which 
conduce to maintain that Unity, and which 
He has appointed for the attainment of that 
end. 

<*H. 16. You say that these Ministrations 
of Sacerdotal Intercession and Benediction 
conduce to maintain Church Unity, how is this 
the case ? 



AND BENEDICTION. 97 

2V. Since, as has been shown from Scrip- Chap. 
ture, Public Prayer derives its efficacy from x ^ * 
being offered in a spirit of Unity, that is, not /" Y ~ 
only in a special Place, but also in comma- xvm. 19,20. 
nion with special Persons, and since God has } Si?"xbll 
appointed that Public Prayer should be offered, ex. xx. 25. 
and His Benedictions be received, in this 
manner, it follows that we shall be careful not \ ^JJ- TiL 
to separate ourselves from such appointed 
Places and Persons, lest we forfeit the be- ^ 3 eut - xiL 5 - 
nefits promised and conferred, in and through xxxi. 11-13. 
them, by Prayer and Blessing, on those " who is.' u^s.* • 
are gathered together in Christ's Name ," i. e., ^ ke XX1V ' 
in a spirit of love to Him, and to His Church ; £. ct « "• i- *e. 
and we shall thus endeavour to "maintain 
the Unity of the Spirit in the bond of Peace ;" Heb - x - 25 - 
" not forsaking the assembling of ourselves 
together," but being assembled all "with one 
accord in one place," and being all "of one Prayer for 
heart, and of one soul, united in one holy bond ™Ixvha. 
of Truth and Peace, of Faith and Charity, lxxxiv ' ■» 2 ' 
we shall with one mind and one mouth glorify 
God." 

<£l. 17. How was this principle for the 
maintenance of Unity by these Ministra- 
tions practically carried out in the Primitive 
Church ? 

21. In the early ages of the Church, Chris- 
tendom consisted of independent Provinces, 
as has been shown, and these were subdi- 
vided into what are now termed Dioceses, 
each of which had a Bishop as its Centre of 
Unity , the Presbyters of the Diocese being 
subject to and united with their Bishop, and 
9 



98 SET FORMS OF PUBLIC PRAYER. 

Part the People being in communion with their 
respective Pastors. And as the Bishop was 
v the Centre of Unity, for the purposes of dif- 
fusing Grace to all, and of joining all to- 
gether, and of presenting them unitedly to 
God, so the Cathedral was the common Mother 
Church of the whole Diocese ; and thus, by 
personal and local communion, the Faithful 
of each Diocese w x ere united together as one 
man in the offices of Public Worship, and 
were partakers of those Graces which are 
Ps.cxxxni.1. specially promised by God to those who " dwell 
together in Unity." 



CHAPTER XVI. 

PRIVILEGES IN THE CHURCH. 

Set Forms of Public Prayer. . 

<£t. 1. What other benefit do we receive 
through the Church, besides the pure Word 
of God, the Administration of the Sacra- 
ments, Discipline, Intercession, and Benedic- 
tion ? (Chaps, vi. — xv.) 

21. That of sound set Forms of Common 
Prayer. 

(St. 2. How do we receive them by the 
Church? 

21. Because, even if the Church could 






SET FORMS OF PUBLIC PRAYER. 99 

exist without them, they could not exist with- Chap. 
out the Church ; that is, they could not exist XVI - 
without stated Times, Places, and Persons, ^■"*v"~^ / 
set apart for the exercise of religious wor- 
ship. 

<£L 3. What authority have we for expect- 
ing to receive special benefits from Public 
Prayer ? 

31. When our Lord described the Tern- Matt. ki. 13 
pie, He called it a "House of Prayer ;" isa.M.7. 
and to Public Prayers, as distinguished from 20* 
Private, a special blessing is promised by 
Christ Himself: " Where two or three are 
gathered together in My Name, there am I 
in the midst of them." 

(EL 4. In what way are set Forms of Public 
Prayer advantageous ? 

Ql. Set forms of sound words, as distin- 
guished from extemporaneous Prayers, are 
free from the danger of offending the majesty 
of God by irrelevant and irreverent expres- 
sions, and " endless and senseless effusions of 
indigested prayers, and of thus disgracing the 
worthiest part of Christian duty towards 
God;" they are formed after Christ's own 
precept ; they impart fervour to the luke- 
warm, and are a restraint on fanaticism ; 
they are public, solemn professions of true 
Religion, to which they give life and vigour ; 
they maintain unimpaired "the proportion 

of faith, 'tr.v ava.'koyia.v itys rtctfT'scos : they de- Rom. xii 6. 

liver the Minister from the peril of pride, 
and of unduly exalting and dwelling upon one 
doctrine, and depressing and neglecting an- 



100 



SET FORMS OF PUBLIC PRAYER. 




Above xi. 
ans. 15, 16- 



other ; they are a standard of preaching, and 
a rule for hearing ; they unite the hearts, and 
voices of Christian men and of Christian 
congregations with each other, with the saints 
departed, and with angels in heaven ; they 
give public significations of Christian charity 
for those who cannot or will not communi- 
cate in them ; they serve to maintain Unity 
by Unison and Uniformity ; they are like a 
sacred anchor, by which the Church is safely 
moored in the peaceful harbour of Catholic 
Truth and Love. 



PART II. 

(S>n Uje Anglican Srancf) of tl)e datbolic 
QUpird). 



CHAPTER I. 

CHURCH OF ENGLAND. — ITS ORIGIN. 

(El. 1. The Catholic Church is compared 
by the Christian Fathers to the Sea, as being 
diffused throughout all the world ; as being, 
like the Sea, one ; as having one name, that 
of the Catholic Church ; and as containing 
within it many Catholic Churches with various 
names, as the Ocean has many various seas 
and bays within it : is the Church of Eng- 
land one of these Churches ? 

&. Yes. 

(St. 2. How do you prove that she is a part 
of the Catholic Church ? 

21. Because she is united with it in Ori- 
gin, in Doctrine, and in Government. 

Cfil. 3. How in Origin ? 

21. By means of the unbroken succession 
of her Bishops and Pastors, through whom 
she traces her origin from the Apostles, some 
9* (101) 





102 CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 

of whom are recorded to have preached the 
Gospel in the British Isles. 

<El. 4. You say that the Church of Eng- 
land was founded in the Apostolic age ; how 
is this consistent with the opinion sometimes 
maintained, that its inhabitants were first 
converted to Christianity by St. Augustine, 
sent from Rome for that purpose by Pope 
Gregory the First, at the close of the sixth 
century (a. d. 596 ?) 

Qi. St. Augustine converted the Saxon 
inhabitants of a part of England (Kent,) 
who had invaded that region and dispossessed 
the ancient British inhabitants ; but they 
relapsed into heathenism in a little more than 
twenty years after the arrival of St. Au- 
gustine ; and there were Christian Bishops 
in Britain several hundred years before he 
landed there. 

6H. 5. What proof have you of this ? 

21. Eusebius asserts that some of the Apos- 
tles passed over to Britain. Tertullian, who 
lived in the second century after Christ, 
speaks of " Britannorum inaccessa Roman- 
is loca, Christo vero subdita" Origen, who 
lived in the next age, speaks of Britain con- 
senting in the worship of the true God. And 
St. Alban was martyred under Diocletian 
(a. d. 305,) nearly three hundred years be- 
fore the landing of St. Augustine. 

(El. 6. Since, then, there were Christians in 
England even from the Apostolic times, can 
you further show that there were Christian 
Bishops ?- 



ITS ORIGIN. 103 

Qt. Yes ; it follows, first from the very na- 
ture of the case. Ecclesia in JUpiscopo was 
the motto of primitive Christianity ; and, also 
TJbi JEcclesia, ibi HJpiscopus. There was in 
those ages no idea of such a thing as a Church 
without a Bishop. 

(EL 7. Does the existence of British Bishops 
antecedent to Augustine appear from any 
other evidence ? 

Qt. Yes. British Bishops were present at 
the earliest Councils of the Church ; viz., at 
the Council of Aries, A. D. 314. (At which 
time there were three Metropolitans in Bri- 
tain, as there were three Provinces, one Max- 
ima Csesariensis, the other Britannia Prima, 
the third Britannia Secunda ; the seat of the 
Metropolitan of the first, being York ; of the 
second, London ; of the third, Caerleon, on 
Usk, in Monmouthshire.) Again, at the 
Council of Sardica, A. d. 347 ; and again, 
probably, at that of Ariminum, A. d. 359 ; 
and there were, we know, seven British 
Bishops and a British Archbishop, when Au- 
gustine landed in England. 




104 CHURCH OF ENGLAND 




CHAPTER II. 

CHURCH OF ENGLAND INDEPENDENT OF ROME. 

Period before the arrival of St. Augustine. 

fflt. 1. There were, then, Christians and 
Christian Bishops in Britain from the Apos- 
tolic times ; but can you show, further, that 
the British Church did not derive its origin 
from that of Rome, and was not dependent 
on it? 

21. There is no evidence whatever of any 
such dependence. No trace whatever can be 
found of the Pope of Rome having exercised 
any ecclesiastical authority in England for 
the first six hundred years after Christ ; and 
it is certain that England did not receive her 
Christianity at first through Rome ; indeed, 
there is very good ground for believing that 
the Church of England is some years older 
than that of Home. 

(&. 2. Give evidence of this non-reception 
of Christianity, in the first instance, from 
Home. 

21. To omit other proofs, we may appeal 
to the English word Church, which is de- 
rived, as has been before said, (part i. chap, 
i.) from the Gcreek Kvpiaxrj, a term which no 
Roman ever applied to the Church (which 
he called Ecclesia, and by no other name :) 



INDEPENDENT OF ROME. 105 

•and it is not credible that, if the Church Chap. 
of England had been derived from Rome, it **• 
should have been designated by a title foreign v— — ' 
to Rome. 

(£1. 3. Yes. The word Church is, no doubt, 
of Greek origin, and is unknown to the Ro- 
man tongue ; is there any other proof that 
the English Church was derived from some 
country where the Greek, and not Roman, 
language was spoken? 

21. Yes. The facts that the British Church, 
and, indeed, a great portion of the Saxon 
Church,- from a. d. 635 till A. d. 664, followed 
the Asiatic custom in keeping Easter, and 
in its manner of administering Baptism — 
(points in which they differed from the Ro- 
man Church, as Augustine himself said in 
his speech to the British Bishops, adding, that 
there were also other things "quwagitis 
moribus nostris contraria") — seem to show 
that the Church of England was derived, 
through a Greek or Asiatic channel, from that 
whence the Roman itself came, namely, from ***» «. ?. 
the Mother of all Churches, the Church of lXxSv.' 
Jerusalem. 47 * 

(fit. 4. The Church of England, then, was 
not planted by Rome : was it in any way 
dependent on it ? 

21. As has been before said, for the first Ans.Lp.173. 
six centuries after Christ, no ecclesiastical 
authority was exercised in Britain by the 
Bishop of Rome. So true is this, that Gre- 
gory himself, about A. D. 590, being told that 
certain children whom he saw at Rome were 




106 CHURCH OF ENGLAND 

"de Britannia insula," did not even know, 
but inquired for information, whether they 
were Pagan or Christian? and the British 
Bishops declared to St. Augustine that they 
were under a Metropolitan of their own, the 
Bishop of Caerleon, and that they knew no- 
thing of the Bishop of Rome as an ecclesias- 
tical superior. 

(fit. 5. But did not the first General Coun- 
cil, that of Nice in Bithynia, (a. d. 325,) 
acknowledge the Bishop of Rome to be 
Patriarch of the West (Canon 6 ?) 

Qt. No ; the Council of Nice recognised 
the Bishop of Alexandria as having authority 
over the Churches of Egypt, Libya, and Pen- 
tapolis, as the Bishops of Rome, Antioch, 
and other patriarchal Churches, had over 
their own Ecclesiastical Districts respectively, 
and no further. And the Bishop of Rome's 
jurisdiction extended only (see above, part I. 
chap. xii. ans. 14,) to what were called the 
SuburbicariseEcclesiee, that is, to the Churches 
of middle and southern Italy, Sicily, Sardi- 
nia and Corsica : and even the Bishops of 
Milan, Ravenna and Aquileia, in Italy, were 
not ordained by, nor dependent on, the Bishop 
of Rome, for more than six hundred years 
after Christ. So far, then, from his being 
Patriarch of the West, in the fourth century, 
the Bishop of Rome's Patriarchate did not 
even include all Italy; for the ordination 
or confirmation of Metropolitans in a Patri- 
archate is an essential part of patriarchal 
power. (See above pt. i. ch. xii. ans. 16.) 



INDEPENDENT OF ROME. 107 

<&. 6. But did not the Council of Aries in Chap. 

Gaul, A. d. 314, at which three British. ^ 

Bishops were present, in their synodical letter 
to Pope Sylvester, acknowledge him as hold- 
ing the major es Dioeceses ? 

21. Yes, certainly it did; but the term 
Diocese did not then mean a Patriarchal Pro- 
vince, but one of several subdivisions of a 
Province ; and it is certain that the Fathers 
of that Council never understood these ma- 
jores Dioeceses to extend beyond the Subur- 
bicarian Churches above mentioned ; and they 
never conceived the Bishop of Rome, who 
was not present there, to have any jurisdic- 
tion over themselves, as is clear from their 
enacting Canons without him, and from the 
following words in the same synodical letter, 
" Te pariter nobiscum judicante, coetusnoster 
majore lsetitia, exultasset ;" and from the ap- 
pellation "f rater carissime," by which they 
address him. 

(El. 7. But what do you say to the appel- 
late jurisdiction given to the see of Rome by 
the Council of Sardica in Illyria, A. D. 347 
(Canons 3, 4, 7 ?) 

21. If given then, we may infer that it was 
not possessed before, and, whatever it may 
be, it is therefore, not only of human, but 
not of primitive nor very early institution. 
But further, the Council of Sardica, wishing 
to have means of meeting a particular case, 
that of St. Athanasius, permits, but does not 
require, that a reference may be made, not 
to the Bishop of Rome generally, but per- 




108 CHURCH OF ENGLAND 

sonally to Julius, the then Bishop of that see 
if a Bishop thinks himself aggrieved in a 
judicial matter ; and this reference is to be 
made by the judges who tried the cause ; in 
which case the Bishop of Rome may desire 
the cause to be reheard by the neighbouring 
Bishops, in the country where it arose, and 
may send assessors to them. So far was the 
Council of Sardica from giving a right of ap- 
peal to Rome in the common sense of the 
term. And, further still, it is to be observed, 
that this Council of Sardica was not a Gf-eneral 
one ; and that the whole of this decree was 
subsequently reversed by a General Council, 
that of Chalcedon (Can. ix. xvii. xxv.) 



CHAPTER III. 

CHURCH OF ENGLAND INDEPENDENT OF ROME. 

Mission of St. Augustine. 

(El. 1. You have said that the Bishop of 
Rome exercised no jurisdiction in England 
during the first six centuries : but may it not 
be justly alleged that he might acquire Pa- 
triarchal authority over England by the con- 
version of the Saxons to Christianity by Au- 
gustine, sent from Rome by Pope Gregory 
the First, a. d. 596 ? 



INDEPENDENT OF ROME. 109 

Ql. No. By conversion they became not Chap. 
Gregory's nor Augustine's, but Christ's. "*■ 
And further, Augustine, it is true, converted 
Ethelbert, king of the Cantii, and the inha- 
bitants of part of his kingdom ; but Bertha, 
his queen, was a Christian already ; and there 
was a Christian Bishop, Liudhard, and a 
Christian Church in his capital city, Canter- 
bury, before Augustine's arrival ; and even 
if Augustine had converted the whole Hep- 
tarcliy, no such right could by that act have 
been acquired. If such right were to accrue 
by conversion, all Christian Churches, and 
Rome among them, would be subject to " the 
Mother of all Churches, the Church of Jerusa- 
lem," (above, ch. ii. ans. 4.) 

(St. 2. But might not the Pope obtain a 
Patriarchal authority by the ordination of St. 
Augustine, and of those who were ordained 
by him ? 

21. No. This plea, is under another form, 
the same as that of conversion ; for that sup- 
poses the planting of a Church, and a Church 
supposes an ordained ministry of Bishops, 
Priests, and Deacons ; and, besides, as Bri- 
tain had never been under the Bishop of 
Rome's jurisdiction, but had been always 
governed by her own Bishops, the assertion 
of such authority on the part of the Popes of 
Rome is an infraction of the Canon of the 
General Council of Ephesus (a. d. 431 ;) which 
Pope Gregory himself declared that he re- 
garded, as he did the three other General 
Councils, with the highest veneration. 
10 




110 CHURCH OF ENGLAND 

(El. 3. What is the tenor of that Ephesine 
Canon ? 

3t. It is expressed as follows : " Rhegi- 
nus and his fellow Bishops of the province 
of Cyprus, Zeno andEvagrius, having brought 
under our notice an innovation against the 
laws of the Church and the Canons of the Holy 
Fathers, and affecting the liberty of all ; 
This holy Synod, seeing that public disorders 
require greater remedies, inasmuch as they 
bring greater damage, decrees that, if no 
ancient custom has prevailed for the Bishop 
of Antioch to ordain in Cyprus — as the 
depositions made to us attest there has not — 
the Prelates of the Cyprian Churches shall, 
according to the decrees of the Holy Fa- 
thers and to ancient practice, exercise the 
right of ordaining in the said Church unmo- 
lested and inviolable. And the same rule 
shall be observed in all other dioceses and 
provinces whatsoever, so that no Bishop shall 
occupy another province which has not been 
subject to him from the beginning ; and if 
he shall have made any such occupation or 
seizure, let him make restitution, lest the 
Canons of the Holy Fathers be transgressed ; 
and lest under pretext of sacerdocy the pride 
of power should creep in, and thus we should, 
by little and little, lose the liberty which the 
Liberator of all men, Jesus Christ, has 
purchased for us with His own blood.' ' By 
this right, which is called the Jus Cyprium, 
the Church of England is independent of 
all foreign jurisdiction; and by the same 



INDEPENDENT OF ROME. Ill 

authority the Pope, if he claim any such au- Chap 
thority, is guilty of unwarrantable usurpa- —• 
tion. y ""*- 

(St. 4. But is not the case of England 
very different from that of Cyprus, inas- 
much as in Cyprus, at the time of the Coun- 
cil of Ephesus, there were Christian Bishops 
discharging their spiritual functions ; where- 
as, when Augustine landed in England, the 
greater part of it had fallen into heathenism, 
and without him, it is alleged, there would 
have been no Church in this country ; and 
did not Pope Gregory, therefore, it is asked, 
obtain a patriarchal jurisdiction over Eng- 
land by giving it what is called the grace of 
Holy Orders? 

21. The grace of Holy Orders, like alli^kexix.45. 
other spiritual grace, is not to be dispensed 20°. s T1 ' 
for private advantage; " gratis datur, quia 
gratia vocatur;" " gratis accepistis, gratis 
date." It might also first be inquired, 
whether Augustine used all proper means to 
enter into and maintain communion with the 
existing British Bishops. Next it may be 
asked, tvhether, on the ground of a mere 
ceremonial difference concerning the time of 
observing Easter, and one or two similar 
matters, (such as had not interrupted the 
communion of St. Polycarp and Pope Ani- 
cetus, and concerning which St. Irenaeus, in 
his letter to Pope Victor, had left both a 
warning and a rule,) he ought to have stood 
apart from them, and required a change of 
their customs as a condition of communion 




112 CHURCH OF ENGLAND 

with Rome ; and lastly, it may well be 
doubted whether, because the British Bishops 
were unwilling to renounce obedience to their 
own Primate, and to swear allegiance to the 
Bishop of Rome, the rights of these native 
Bishops and of the British Qhurch ought to 
have been set at naught by him, and sacri- 
ficed. But even on the supposition that Au- 
gustine proceeded regularly in all this, yet 
the ordination of Augustine, and of those 
who were ordained by him, gave to the 
Bishop of Rome no patriarchal jurisdiction 
over the country in which Augustine was 
received. 

<2H. 5. You say that the ordination of St. 
Augustine gave the Bishop of Rome no juris- 
diction over England ; explain the grounds 
on which this assertion rests. 

Qt. It is one thing to give a power, and 
another thing to give the privileges, which 
may accrue, by the will of a third indepen- 
dent party, to be recipient of that power. 
Gregory had, indeed, the power to ordain 
Augustine a Bishop, (though, be it remem- 
bered, Augustine was not consecrated by 
Gregory at Rome, but by the Archbishop of 
Aries, in Gaul,) but he had no power to place 
Augustine at Canterbury as Metropolitan 
and Patriarch of England, and to give him 
Jurisdiction as such over its Bishops and 
Clergy. 

(El. 6. And does Augustine in fact also 
appear to have been placed in England by 
King Ethelbert, and not by the Bishop of 
Rome ? 



INDEPENDENT OF ROME. 113 

31. Yes, certainly. Ethelbert gave him Chap. 
permission to land, and to preach in his 
realm. Even his place at Canterbury is a^ 
proof of the exercise of the royal power ; for 
Ethelbert placed him at Canterbury (as 
being the civil Metropolis of his kingdom) 
and not at London, which Gregory had de- 
sired ; and Ethelbert endowed the Cathedral 
Churches of Canterbury, London, and Ro- 
chester, which were the only Episcopal Sees 
founded or restored in England in the life of 
Augustine. 

(EX. 7. You, therefore, consider St. Augus- 
tine and his successors as occupying the 
place and as inheriting the rights of the 
ancient Metropolitans and Patriarchs of 
England, and succeeding to the privileges 
secured to them by the canons of the 
Church ? 

31. Yes, so far as was allowed by the sove- 
reign power ; and since it cannot be pleaded 
that any act of a General or Provincial 
Council canonically done with the sove- 
reign's consent, has ever placed Britain in 
the patriarchate of Rome, in which it never 
was before the landing of Augustine, the 
Bishop of Rome's subsequent usurpation of 
the metropolitan and patriarchal rights of 
the English Primate, is an invasion of the 
Royal Prerogative, and an infraction of the 
Canons of the Universal Church, and a 
violation of the precept of Scripture con- 
cerning the removal of a neighbour's land 
mark. 

10* 




114 CHURCH OF ENGLAND 

(£l. 8. And, therefore, the Patriarch of 
Rome cannot claim jurisdiction over the 
Patriarch of England on the alleged ground 
of the mission and ordination of St. Augus- 
tine or any other ? 

21. No ; all Patriarchs are independent of 
each other (pt. i. ch. xii. ans. 18 ;) and with 
respect to this plea of ordination, the Bishop 
of Rome might as well claim jurisdiction 
over the Patriarch of Alexandria, and over 
the Bishops and Clergy of his patriarchate, 
on the ground of St. Mark, the first Bishop 
of Alexandria, having been sent into Egypt 
by St. Peter, as over the Patriarch of Eng- 
land, (and such the Archbishop of Canter- 
bury was acknowledged by Pope Urban II. 
to be,) and over his patriarchate on the 
ground of the mission of Augustine by 
Gregory. 



CHAPTER IV. 

CHURCH OF ENGLAND INDEPENDENT OF ROME. 

Period between the Mission of St. Augustine 
and the Reformation. 

(Si. 1. Even on the supposition that the 
Bishops of Rome had possessed a patriarchal 
jurisdiction in England before or during the 



INDEPENDENT OF ROME. 115 

papacy of Gregory, could they have had any 
such power after it ? 

91. No. As was before said, that part of 
England, which was converted by Augustine 
and his companions, relapsed into Paganism 
a few years after his decease ; and not only 
that part, but a very large portion of the 
whole country was Christianized in the 
seventh century, by Scottish and Saxon 
Missionaries, under Aidan of Lindisfern, 
and the Bishops and Priests (St. Chad, his 
brother Cedda, Finam, Diuma,) connected 
with him, who were entirely independent of 
Rome. But, further, a year and a half after 
the death of Gregory, Boniface III. occupied 
the papal chair, and by his assumption of 
the anti-scriptural and anti-catholic title 
(condemned as such by Gregory his prede- 
cessor) of Universal Bishop, by which he 
violated the Unity of the Church; he for- 
feited the name and jurisdiction of Patri- 
arch ; as one .of the greatest of the Popes 
says, Propria perdit quiindebita concupiscit. 

(El. 2. But after this time did not the 
Bishops of Rome in fact exercise a patri- 
archal jurisdiction over the British Metro- 
politans, by sending them their Pallium, or 
archiepiscopal pall, at their consecration ? 

91. Unhappily after the age of Gregory 
there was a maxim in Romish state-policy, 
Da, ut habeas, Crive, in order that you may 
have. The pall was at first a badge given by 
the Emperors to Patriarchs ; when it came to 
be given by Popes, it was, for some time, no- 





116 CHURCH OF ENGLAND 

thing but a symbolum fraternitatis — a mark 
of communion with Rome ; it was no neces- 
sary part of the archiepiscopal dignity, and 
many archbishops never had it. At length, 
however, it was imposed by Rome as essential 
to them about a. d. 1235 and was sold for 
vast sums of money. 

<Bt. 3. Did not those Metropolitans then 
take an Oath of Canonical Obedience to the 
see of Rome ? 

21. No. The Oath of Bishops at Conse- 
cration, to whomsoever it was taken, was an- 
ciently nothing more than a Profession of 
Faith; and any other oath than this was 
prohibited by the eighth General Council, A. 
D. 870 ;) nor was any oath imposed with the 
Pall before the year A. D. 1115 ; and the 
oath of canonical obedience, when it came to 
be taken to the Pope, even under Gregory 
VII., Hildebrand (a. d. 1073—1085,) obliged 
a Bishop to observe the Regulas Sanctorum 
Patrum, and not, as these words were after- 
wards transformed, to maintain the Regalia 
Sancti Petri; and the Oath now taken is 
not three hundred years old ; it dates only 
from the Pontificate of Clement VIII. (a. d. 
1592—1605.) 

(EL 4. But was not the pall received by 
English Archbishops, and the oath to main- 
tain the Regalia Sancti Petri taken by Eng- 
lish Bishops, from the beginning of the 
twelfth century ? 

3u Yes ; that oath was framed by Pope 
Paschalis II. (1099—1118) and imposed by 



INDEPENDENT OF ROME. 117 

him, to the great astonishment of Kings, Chap. 
Nobles, and Ecclesiastics, .on Archbishops, IV * 
and afterwards by Gregory IX. (1227 — ' v^-^ 
1241) on Bishops. But neither could the 
pall be lawfully received from a foreign pre- 
late under conditions of allegiance to him, 
nor an oath of obedience taken to him by 
any subject without the consent of his Prince, 
and much less so against it ; for it is essen- 
tial to the goodness of an oath, that it should 
be in possibilibus et licitis, or, as the Holy N e Jm. T iL. 
Scripture expresses it, in veritate, judicio et 2-10^ m 
justitiw. And further, as the papal decretals 28, 45.' 3*. 
themselves declare, non valet jur amentum in Mark vi. 23. 
prdejudieium juris superioris. Hence when £ 2 cts xxiii * 
an English Bishop had received the pall, and 
taken the oath, King William II. declared 
that he would banish him from England, if 
he violated his allegiance to the Crown under 
plea of compliance with the oath. 

(Et. 5. But the Pall being received, and 
the Oath taken, did not the Popes acquire a 
Patriarchal right in England by practice ? 

21. No ; the Pope both quitted and for- 
feited whatever Patriarchal jurisdiction he 
possessed any where by his assumption of 
Universal Supremacy over the Church, and 
by his acts of tyranny, usurpation, exaction, 
and rebellion against Church Canons and 
lawful Sovereigns : and the exercise of such 
Patriarchal jurisdiction on his part was 
never acknowledged in England, but, on the 
contrary, was resisted by protests continually 
made .by the Kings of England, by the 




118 CHURCH OF ENGLAND 

Church in her Synods, and by the State in 
Parliament. Besides, as it rested not on any 
sound basis of right, but, on the contrary, 
was destructive of the fundamental rights of 
the Crown and of the Church, (and nullum 
tempus occur rit Regi aut Ecclesise,) and as 
Patriarchal authority depends on the consent 
of both, it never could have acquired legal 
validity, for, as Pope Boniface the Vlllth 
says, Non firmatur tractu temporis quod de 
jure abinitio non subsistit. 

(Si. 6. What evidence is there of opposition 
to the Papal encroachments ? 

21. Protests, such as have been mentioned, 
were made by Egfrid, King of Northumber- 
land, and his successor King Alfrid, on occa- 
sion of the first great appeal to Rome ; by 
King Edward the Confessor, by Henry the 
First, and succeeding sovereigns ; and the 
same spirit which dictated these remonstran- 
ces, declared itself publicly and legislatively 
in the Constitutions of Clarendon, A. D. 
1164 ; and again, A. D. 1246 ; in the Statute 
of Carlisle, A. D. 1297 ; in the Articles of the 
Clergy, in the Statutes of Provisors, a. d. 
1350, A. D. 1363, and a. d. 1389 ; of Mort- 
main and of Praemunire, a. d. 1391-2 ; and, 
finally, in the Statutes of Henry VIII., from 
a. d. 1531 to a. d. 1543, which, in the opin- 
ion of the soundest English lawyers, were 
not operative but declaratory acts ; that is, 
they were no new laws, but only vindicated 
and enforced the old. 

(fit 7. But was not the English Reforma- 



INDEPENDENT OF ROME. 119 

tion brought about by Henry VIII. to Chap. 
gratify his own evil passions ; and was it not 
attended with corrupt and sacrilegious prac- "^ 
tices ? 

QV. We might ask, in reply, " Is not the 
Papal Supremacy due to the Emperor Phocas 
a murderer?" But, admitting for argu- 
ment's sake, all that has been said against 
King Henry VIII. .by the adversaries of the 
Reformation ; admitting also, that he was a 
leading agent in effecting it ; still the work- 
man is not the work. The Temple of Solo- 
mon was constructed with cedars of Lebanon 1 Kings y. e. 
hewn by workmen of heathen Tyre. Jehu 2 Kings x.' 
did not please God ; but his Reformation did. 30 ' 31 * 
Nebuchadnezzar and Ahaseurus were idola- pan. m. 1- 
trous; but their Edicts for God's service Esther ix. 32. 
were religious. The Temple in which our 
Lord was presented, and in which He 
preached and worshipped, had been repaired 
by the impious and cruel Herod, who sought 
our Lord's life. And so with respect to the 
charge of sacrilege, we are not careful to 
defend the character and conduct of all those 
who had any part in the Reformation ; but 
we bless God for His own work, and for 
many of the instruments He raised up for it, 
and for overruling and directing others to 
His own glory in the good of His Church. 




120 THE REFORMATION * 



CHAPTER V. 

THE REFORMATION IN ENGLAND A REMOVAL 
OF WHAT WAS NEW, AND A RESTORATION OF 
WHAT WAS OLD. 

(HI. 1. Is it not sometimes said that the 
Church England, as she now exists, arose at 
the Reformation, and is, therefore, a new 
Church, not more than 300 years old? How 
then can she be united by origin with the 
Catholic Church? 

%. The language of the Church of Eng- 
land, when she reformed herself, was similar 
to that of the Fathers at the Nicene Council, 

in A. D. 325, TA APXAIA E0H KPATEITO, 

Let the ancient customs prevail. 

<&. 2. But you say she reformed herself; 
did she not thus become a new Church ? 

Qi. No. She reformed herself, because she 
loved what was old, and did not love what 
was new. As was before shown, (chap. i. ii. 
answer 7,) she was founded in the .Apos- 
tolic age ; at the Reformation she recovered 
herself from the errors into which in course 
of time she had fallen ; and she proceeded in 
all this gradually and moderately, lawfully 
and wisely, with the joint deliberation and 
co-operation of her Universities, her Clergy, 
and the People of England in Parliament as- 
sembled ; and finally, with the ratification of 




NOT INNOVATING BUT RESTORATIVE. 121 

the Crown. The errors of the English 
Church were not the Church herself ; and in^ 
quitting them she did not quit herself, any- 
more than a man changes his skin when he 
cleanses it, or loses his identity when he re- 
covers from a disease. The English Church 
after the Reformation was as much the 
English Church, as Naaman was Naaman 
after he had washed in the river Jordan ; 
indeed, as "his flesh then came again ," so 
w r as she restored to her healthful self at the 2Kin s svU 
Reformation. She might then have applied 
to herself the language of the Bishop of Car- 
thage, " In quo nutaverit Veritas, ad Origi- 
nem Dominicam et Evangelicam et Aposto- 
licam Traditionern revertamur, et inde 
surgat actus nostri Ratio unde et Or do et 
Origo surrexit !" 

(CI. 3. But since then the English Church 
w T as as you affirm, restored at the Reforma- 
tion, can we say that she could have been 
properly called a Church while she was 
infected with so many Papal corruptions as 
she was before it ? 

21. Yes ; under Popery she was a Church, 
though an erring one. The Israelitish 
Church still remained a Church even under 
Ahab ; the Jewish Church still existed under 
the Pharisees ; the Scribes sat in Moses' seat, 
and were to be obeyed in all things lawful 
and indhTerent. Jerusalem was " the Holy 
City," though its rulers did not receive 
Christ. The Christian Church existed still, 
when the " world groaned that it had become 

11 




122 THE REFORMATION 

Arian." The ark of God was still the ark 
of God, even when in the hands of the Philis- 
tines ; and the vessels of the Temple were 
holy even at Babylon. So the Church of 
England, though she had fallen from her 
former purity, was still a Church while under 
the Pope. If she was not a Church then, we 
admit that she is no Church now ; and we 
would then allow that she was founded at the 
Reformation, that is, that she was the work 
of men, and not of God; that she sprang 
from earth, and not from heaven ; that she is 
a new Church, and therefore, no Church. 
But no ; we believe her to have been a true 
Church, and {corruptions excepted) the same 
Church, before Papal times, in them, and 
after them. 

(El. 4. But can you explain further, how 
she could be a Church in Papal times ? 

Qt. Because as both the Israelites and 
Jews had the Law and the Prophets and a 
Priesthood in the worst times, and were so 
God's people, as we have seen, and were 
recognised by Him and by Christ as such ; 
as the apostolical and apocalyptic Churches, 
although tainted with sundry corruptions, 
(see above, pt. i. ch. i. ans. 7.) did not there- 
fore cease to be Churches, and are called 
Churches in Holy Writ ; so in Popish times 
the Church of England had, by God's mercy, 
„ the essentials of a Church, though greatly 
marred and obscured. She had the Christian 
Sacraments ; the Holy Scriptures ; an Apos- 
tolic Succession of Ministers ; the Lord's 



NOT INNOVATING BUT RESTORATIVE. 128 

Prayer ; the three Creeds, and the Ten com- Chap. 
mandments, and she was, therefore, a v * 
Church. ' * ' 

(St. 5. You speak of the Church of England 
as existing before Popery, and as holding the 
ancient faith ; but is she not called a Pro- 
testant Church, and is it then consistent to 
say, that she is older than Popery, when 
Protestantism is a renunciation of Popery ? 
and how then can she be united by doctrine 
with the Catholic Church ? 

91. The Church of England, as a Church, A h ^ ve : **• u. 
is as old as Christianity. Her Protestantism 
is, indeed, comparatively recent, and this for 
a good reason, because the Romish errors 
and corruptions, against which she protests, 
are recent : but the fact is, that, as the Uni- 
versal Church, for the maintenance of her 
Catholicity, was Protestant at the first four 
General Councils ; as she protested at Nicaea 
against the heresy of Arius, and at Constan- 
tinople against Macedonius, as she protested 
at Ephesus against Nestorius, and at Chal- 
cedon against Eutyches, so the Church of 
England became Protestant at the Reforma- 
tion, in order that she might be more truly 
and purely Catholic ; and, as far as Papal 
errors are concerned, if Rome will become 
truly Catholic, then, but not till then, the 
Church of England will cease to be Pro- 
testant. 

(Q. 6. But it is said, do not what are 
called the Thirty-nine Articles contain an 
exposition of the doctrines of the Church 



124 THE REFORMATION 

Part f England, and were they not first drawn 
v ~ up, as they now stand, in the year 1562 : 
v and if so, where was the Faith of the Eng- 
lish Church before that time ? and if she had 
no Articles of Faith, how could she be a 
Church? and how, therefore, be united in 
doctrine with the Catholic Church ? 

Qt. Where, we might ask in reply, was 
the faith of the Universal Church of Christ 
before the year 325, when the Nicene Creed 
was promulgated? — And the answer would 
be — It was in the Holy Scriptures as inter- 
preted by the Church from the beginning. 
jude3. So the Church of England holds neither more 
nor less than " the Faith once (for all, a*a£) 
delivered to the saints." The Thirty-nine 
l Tim. vi. 3- Articles contain no enactment of any thing 
6> 20 * new in doctrine, but they are only a declara- 

Artvi. tion of what is old. In them the Church of 
England affirms that Holy Scripture " con- 
taineth all things necessary to salvation,' ' 
Art. vi. and that by Holy Scripture she means " those 
Art. vni. Canonical books of whose authority was 
never any doubt in the Church;' in them 
she asserts that the three Creeds, which have 
been received by the Catholic Church ever 
since they were framed, " ought thoroughly 
to be received and believed.' ' She rejects 
the practice of public prayer in a tongue not 
understood by the people, as " plainly repug- 
nant to the Word of God, and the custom 
of the primitive Church." Similarly, she ap- 
peals to " Ancient Authors" "Ancient Ca- 
nons" "Fathers" and "Decrees" of the 



t 



NOT INNOVATING BUT RESTORATIVE. 125 

Church in her Ordinal, Homilies, and Canons. Chap. 
She is ready to be judged by the earliest and V ' 
best ages of the Church. But, on the con- v 
trary, the Church of Rome, on other occa- 
sions, and especially at the Council of Trent 
in the sixteenth century, (a. d. 1545-63,) in 
defiance of the prohibition of the Third 
General Council 'that of Ephesus,) imposed 
Twelve new Articles of faith (which she does 
not pretend to rest on Holy Scripture) to be 
believed, on pain of damnation, on the autho- 
rity of this Council, which was uncanonical 
in its convocation, illegal in its convention, 
and uncatholic in its constitution : and thus 
she claims to herself the power of publishing 
a quintum JEvangelium ; or rather, as may 
be truly said, she convicts herself of obtruding 
on the world a New Religion, and of being, 
so far, a Neiv Church. 

(d. 7. But may not a similar defence be 
made for these twelve articles of the Council 
of Trent as was just now alleged in behalf of 
the Thirty-nine Articles? May it not be 
said that they also were only declaratory, 
and that, though first enounced at that 
Council, they had been believed by the 
Catholic Church from the beginning ? 

St. This has, indeed, been said ; but it is 
written in Scripture, that " the Holy Scrip- 
tures are able to make men wise unto salva- 2 Tim.iii. 15. 
turn;" that, "if any man speak, let him 1Petiv - 11 - 
speak as the Oracles of God," and he that 
interpreteth (rtpo^^wv) "let him interpret Rom. xii. 6. 
according to the proportion of faith;" that 
11* 




126 THE REFORMATION 

" the faith was once for all (a*ai) delivered 
; to the saints;'' that we are to hold fast the 
form of sound words, and that, u if any man, 
or even an Angel from heaven, preach any 
other doctrine" than what the Apostles have 
delivered, and the Apostolic Churches have 
Gai.i.9. received, "let him be anathema;" and it is 
incredible that the Church should have be- 
lieved from the beginning so many articles 
which it did not publicly profess till the 
Council of Trent; and no proof has ever been 
adduced of such a belief as is here affirmed. 

And further, the Thirty-nine Articles not 
only do not enforce any new doctrine, but 
they affirm (Article xx.) that none can be 
enforced which is not found in Scripture ; 
whereas the greater number of these Articles 
of the Council of Trent were first declared 
then : and they, be it observed, are articles 
of doctrine ; and are required on oath, and 
under solemn anathemas, to be believed as 
necessary to salvation. Now, a Communion 
which enforces articles of faith which it does 
not find in Scripture, and which it allows to 
have been first declared in the sixteenth cen- 
tury after Christ, and which it cannot show 
to have been held in the early ages of the 
Church, does, in that respect what is very 
unwarrantable ; and, also, it leaves the world 
in uncertainty as to what it may hereafter 
declare to be necessary to salvation ; it 
proves itself to have been very remiss in not 
having before declared doctrines which it as- 
serts to be necessary to salvation; it removes 



NOT INNOVATING BUT RESTORATIVE. 127 

the Faith from the rock on which Christ has Chap. 
set it, and rTlaces it on the shifting sand ; it 
overthrows the authority of Scripture ; it 
sets at defiance the Divine command, " To 
the Law and to the Testimony ! If they Deut. iv. 2. 
speak not according to this Word, it is be- xviii. 20. 
cause they have no, light in them:" and it f^eT" xxx * 
subjects itself to the fearful anathema, Matt^v^' 
"Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem : si non Rom' xv.' 4.' 
est scriptum^ timeant Vm illud adjicentibus m. 15!' 
aut - detrahentibus destinatum I" i 5 Tim - m * 

(£. 8. But, although the Church of Ena-i***-. 11 - 
land declares that the fecriptures contain all is- 
things necessary to salvation, yet she is 
often said to admit the right of private judg- 
ment also, and may not, therefore, novel 
expositions of the Scriptures be publicly pro- 
pounded with her permission by Ministers 
in her communion? 

21. The term private judgment is often 
used very erroneously by those who do not 
understand or will not consider, its true 
meaning, which is, when men set up their 
own private opinions in opposition to the de- 
clared public sentence of the Church. 

Now we affirm that the Church of England 
no where gives any countenance or sanction 
to any such judgment, but, on the contrary 
openly and strongly condemns it. Thus in 
her xxth Article, she asserts the power of the 
Church to decree rites and ceremonies, and 
that it has "authority in controversies of 
faith.'* And with respect to discipline also, 
she says in her xxxivth Article, " Whosoever 



128 THE REFORMATION 

Part through his private judgment willingly and 
**" f purposely doth break the traditions of God's 
Churchy which be not repugnant to God's 
Word, and be ordained and approved by 
common Authority^ ought to be rebuked 
openly, that others may fear to do the like." 
She denies not, indeed, the liberty to any 
one to determine whether he will engage to 
expound according to her public formularies ; 
but she admits no right in any one who has 
made such an engagement, to alter, weaken, 
and subvert, what he is by his own act 
pledged to maintain : on the contrary, she 
censures all impugners of her doctrine and 
discipline ; and no minister of her communion 
may expound at all, unless examined, ap- 
proved, and licensed by the Bishop ; and all 
preachers are under the jurisdiction of their 
Ordinary. As, then, she professes no novel- 
ties herself, so she tolerates none in her Min- 
isters ; and she has emphatically declared 
her reverence for Scripture, as expounded by 
Antiquity, in her Canon of 1571, concerning 
Preachers ; In primis videbunt Co?icionat.ores J 
nequid unquam doceant pro condone quod a 
populo religiose teneri et credi velint, nisi 
quod consentaneum sit doctrinae Veteris aut 
Novi Testament!, quodque ex ilia, ipsa; doc- 
trinal Catholici Patres et veteres Episcopi 
collegerint. 

(Si. 9. But if the Church of Rome be 
chargeable with error and corruption in doc- 
trine and discipline, is not the Church of 
England tainted with error and corruption, 



NOT INNOVATING EUT RESTORATIVE. 129 

since she has derived so much from that of 
Rome ? and if she wishes to be a pure 
Church, ought she not to renounce and ut- 
terly destroy what she has so received? 

$L. Let it be allowed for argument's sake, 
that the Church of England has received 
from the Primitive Church many things 
through that of Home, and not rather 
through the medium of the ancient British, 
Irish, and Scotch Churches, and some things 
from that of Rome herself. But the nature 
of the former, as, for example, the Sacra- 
ments, the Word of God, Holy Orders, Epis- 
copal Government, Prayers, Creeds, Places 
for Divine Worship, the observance of the 
Lord's Day and of Fasts and Festivals, has 
not been impaired by transmission ; and if, 
because they had been abused, she had lost 
these, she would have lost herself; for the 
abuse of a thing does not take away its law- 
ful use, but, on the contrary, Is confirmat 
usum, qui tollit abusum. The latter, such as 
certain Prayers and Ceremonies, were not 
derived from Romanists, as such, but from 
them as being therein Reasonable and Chris- 
tian men ; and the Church of England, by 
retaining both, has prudently, charitably, 
and piously vindicated and restored God's 
things to God's service; whereas, if she had 
permitted the accidental association of bad 
with good to deprive her of the good, and 
had chosen to destroy, instead of to restore, 
she would have been guilty of the folly and 
of the sin of promoting the cause of evil 
against Almighty God and against herself. 




ISO SUCCESSION OF HOLY ORDERS 




CHAPTER VI. 

UNINTERRUPTED SUCCESSION OF HOLY ORDERS 
IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 

(Si. 1. I would next inquire, if the Church 
of England can stand the test applied by the 
ancient Fathers to try Christian communi- 
ties, whether they were sound branches of the 
Catholic Church? 

Qt. Of what test do you speak ? 

(©. 2. That before mentioned ; viz., 
whether her Ministers derive their commis- 
sion by succession from the Apostles. 

Qt. Yes ; the Church of England traces 
the Holy Orders of her Bishops and Presby- 
ters in an unbroken line from the Apostles 
of Christ ; and she declares in her Ordinal, 
(approved in her Articles [Art. xxxvi.] and 
Canons, [Canon xxxvi.] and subscribed by 
all her Ministers and by all who have taken 
Academic Degrees in her Universities of Ox- 
ford and Cambridge,) that " there have ever 
been Three Orders in Christ's Church, those 
of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, from the 
Apostles' time;" and she recognises none as 
having these orders, who have not received 
Episcopal Ordination. (See above Pt. i. ch. 
ix. Pt. ii. ch. i.) 

(Eh 3. And this series was never inter- 
rupted ? 



IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 131 

31. No ; never. Chap. 

<Q. 4. Did, then the Romish Church give v VI - 
an Apostolic commission to those teachers 
who preached against herself? 

2V. No. It was not Home, but it is 
Christ, and Christ alone, Who gives the 
commission to preach and to send preachers, 
and*Who prescribes what is to be preached, 
viz., His oivn Gf-ospel. The Church* of Rome 
was only one of the Channels through which 
that commission flowed, and not the Source 
from which it rose. 

(Q. 5. And this commission was not inva- 
lidated by the errors of those through whose 
hands it passed so that the continuity of the 
Apostolic succession could thus have received 
any interruption ? 

21. No. The divine office must be distin- 
guished from the human officers. The Grace 
of Holy Orders which was transmitted by 
them was the Grace, not of men, but of Christ 
and of the Holy Spirit, and could not be im- 
paired by any personal defects or demerits 
of the Ministers who transmitted it. In theNum.xxiv.2. 
communication of God's ordinances non MatTxxm 1 ^ 
merita personarum consideranda sunt, sedj ohnxi ^ 9t 
officia sacerdotum. tc^tm.'! 

<fll. 6. But were not the Churches, in ° T ' m ' 
which those teachers preached, built and en- 
dowed by Roman Catholics, many of whose 
religious opinions the Church of England has 
declared to be erroneous, and ought they 
therefore to belong to her ? 

21. These Churches, by whomsoever they 




132 SUCCESSION OF HOLY ORDERS 

were founded, were dedicated " Deo et 
Ecclesije;" and by consecration they be- 
came the property and the dwelling-places 
of the Most High, and ceased to be the 
possessions of man. Since then they belong 
not to man, but to Grod, and since God is 
johnxiv. 6. Truth, therefore, whatever doctrine and 

xvii. 17. • • 

i Tim. ii. 5. whatever worship is true, may, nay, mu$t be 
uohny.6. taU gj lt an( j offered therein. Moreover, to 
speak of the intention with which they were 
founded, they were built for Christian 
preaching and worship, and not for the pro- 
motion of Popery, as such, much less of 
Popery such as it became in the sixteenth 
century, at the Council of Trent ; they were 
built, not for the maintenance of error, but 
of truth; and their endowments, though 
given, indeed, in some cases, to an erring 
Church, were not given to its errors. And 
further, (as the Churches of the Donatists in 
Africa and their endowments were trans- 
ferred to the Catholic Church by Christian 
Emperors in the fifth century, and this was 
done legibus religiosis, as St. Augustine 
calls them ; so) when the whole body of the 
Church and State of England, Sovereign and 
People, Clergy and Laity, (doubts and ques- 
tions having arisen concerning divers points 
of doctrine and discipline,) did, after consult- 
ing Reason, Scripture, and Antiquity, in a 
lawful and deliberate manner consider and 
decide the question what is truth and what 
is error, and so the plea of ignorance in 
these matters was taken away, it would have 



IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 133 

been inconsistent with the duty of Rulers Chap. 
and People to Almighty God, and injurious VI. 
to the Founders of those Churches, and to **^^s 
the Nation at large, to have suffered error 
mixed with truth, and corrupting it, both in 
teaching and worship, to be perpetuated in 
them, instead of Truth alone. The Pantheon 
of Agrippa, at Rome, was once a heathen 
temple, dedicated to all the gods, and it is 
now a Christian Church ; and the members 
of the Church of England might ask the 
Romanist why sacrifices are not there offered 
to Jupiter, if he should inquire of them why 
saints are not invoked and images wor- 
shipped in our Churches. 

(Q. 7. You have before spoken of the 
Church of England as Protestant ; is she not 
then liable to a charge of inconsistency and 
partiality in recognising the Holy Orders of 
the Church of Rome, while she does not ac- 
knowledge those of such Protestant Co7iimit-'^ &ce , U)ih9 

. . ° «i -r, . t /-a Ordinal. 

nities as do not possess Episcopal Govern- 
ment ; and does she not, it may be inquired, 
in so doing, prefer Romanists to Protestants ? 

31. No. The Church of England does in Ecci. *hl i. 

. o 7 James ii. 1. 

no respect preter persons, as such, to any Judei6. 
other persons. But, as the baptism given by 
Judas was the baptism of Christ not less than 
that given by Peter or by John, and there- 
fore, the primitive Church did not re-baptize Acts xix. 5. 
those who had been baptized by Judas, but it 
did baptize those who had been baptized by 
John the Baptist ; and in so doing, it did not 
prefer Judas to John, but it preferred the 
12 




134 SUCCESSION OF HOLY ORDERS 

baptism of Christ, though given by Judas, to 
the baptism of John the Baptist, though 
given by John himself ; so the Church of 
England prefers the Holy Orders of Christ, 
by whomsoever they may be given, to a com- 
mission from man, whoever he may be. In 
this matter, therefore, she is resolved to 
" follow the perfection of them that like not 
her, rather than the defect of them whom 
she loves." 

(fit. 8. But it is asked, since a Church 
cannot exist without a priesthood, nor a 
priesthood without a sacrifice, can it be said 
that there is any sacrifice in the Church of 
England : and if not, has she a true priest- 
hood, and is she a true Church ? 
Heb.x.26. 2^ The Church of England has all the 
sacrifice which the Catholic Church has, and 
she dares not have more. In her Office for 
the Holy Communion she has a sacrificium 
Phii.iT. is. primtivum, i. e., a sacrifice in which she 
offers "alms and oblations," primitiee ov first 
fruits, of His own gifts, to God, as the 
Creator and Giver of all; she has a sacri- 
ficium eucharisticum, i. e., a " sacrifice of 
Ps.cxTi.12. praise and thanksgiving;" she has a sacrifi- 
ii C 23-26. 2 °' cium votivum in which the communicant 
Heb. xiu.i. presents himself, his "soul and body, to be a 

Rom. xn. 1. r . . • / ' ~ , ,, , *v , . , 

iPet.ii. 5. reasonable sacrifice to God, ana m which 
the Church offers herself, w^hich is " Christ's 
mystical body," to God; a sacrificium com- 
memorativum, commemorative of the death 
and sacrifice of Christ ; a sacrificium reprse 
sentativum, which represents and pleads His 



VII. 

John vi. 51- 



IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 135 

meritorious sufferings to God ; a sacrificium Chap. 
impetrativum, which implores the benefits of 
Christ's death from Him ; and she has a 
sacrificium applieativum, which applies them 56, 
to the worthy receiver. But she has no sac- 
rificium defectivum, in which the cup is de- 
nied to the lay communicant : nor, on the 
other hand, has she a sacrificium supple- 
tivum, to make up any supposed defects in 
the One great sacrifice offered once for all^^ 27 - 
for the sins of the world, upon the cross, by 
Him Who "reniaineth a Priest for ever after Heb. vii. is. 
the order of Melchizedeck." 



CHAPTER VII. 

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND DID NOT SEPARATE 
HERSELF FROM THE CHURCH OF ROME. 

6H. 1. It is one of the marks of the true 
Church to be always visible : was then, it is 
asked, the Protestant Church of England Matt. v. 14. 
visible before the Reformation ? and if not, 
can it be a true Church ? 

21. Yes, (as has been before stated, chap. 
i — vi.) the Church of England has been 
always visible since the time of the Apostles, 
not, indeed, as Protestant, but as a branch 
of the Catholic Church. A man is a man, 
and a visible man, even when he is labouring 




136 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND DID NOT 

under a sore disease. Job was visibly Job 
, when he was covered with sores. So was the 
Church of England visible in the worst times. 
She was visible in her Churches, in her or- 
dained Ministry, and in her religious assem- 
blies ; she was visible in the Holy Sacra- 
ments, in the Holy Scriptures, in the Deca- 
logue, in the Lord's Prayer, and in the 
Creeds, which she retained even in the worst 
times ; she was visible in the flames of her 
martyrs, who suffered for the Truth. 

<ffi. 2. But if. the Church of England was 
still a Church in Papal times, was she not 
guilty of the sin of schism in separating her- 
self from the Church of Rome ? 
Below, ans. (^ g c hi sm i s a voluntary separation (Part 
i. ch. v. ans. 24.) The Church of England 
did never separate herself from any Chris- 
tian Church, or make a division in the uni- 
versal Church; she purified herself indeed 
from Romish errors, usurpations and corrup- 
tions ; but she did not sever herself from the 
Catholic Church, nor even from the Church 
of Rome. 

(&. 3. How can you further show this ? 

Ql. Even by the confession and practice 
of Popes and Romanists themselves. The 
doctrine and discipline of the Church of 
England is to be found in her Book of 
Common Prayer. Now the Popes of Rome, 
Paul the Fourth, and Pius the Fourth, offered 
to confirm this Book, if Queen Elizabeth 
would acknowledge the Pope's supremacy; 
and Roman Catholics in these realms habi- 



SEPARATE FROM THAT OF ROME. 137 

tually conformed to the worship of the Chap. 
Church of England for the first twelve years 
of Queen Elizabeth's reign, after which time 
they were prevented from doing so by the 
bull of Pius V. (dated Feb. 23, 1569) which 
excommunicated that sovereign. 

(&. 4. How was this separation from 
Romish errors occasioned ? 

Qi. First, through the unjust claims, usur- 
pations, encroachments, and exactions of the 
Bishop of Rome with respect to Investiture, 
Annates, Peter-pence, Papal bulls, Appeals, 
$c. ; which claims rested on forged Papal 
Decretals published by Dionysius Exiguus, in 
the sixth century, and by Pseudo-Isidorus, 
in the ninth century, and the Decretum of 
Gratian, in the twelfth ; and which were 
enforced with great rigour and rapacity, in 
defiance of reason, law, custom, and long and 
oft repeated remonstrance ; and, secondly, 
through the principles of state policy pro- 
pounded by the see of Rome, which rendered 
resistance to its domination on the part of 
Princes and Governments necessary for their 
own preservation ; thirdly, through the impo- 
sition of new amd corrupt doctrines on the 
part of the Church of Rome as necessary to 
salvation and as terms of Communion with 
her. 

(&. 5. Mention some of these main prin- 
ciples of State Policy. 

%. The Bishop of Rome, in his public 
enactments never yet revoked, claimed power 
to dethrone Kings, to dispose of their King- 
12* 




138 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND DID NOT 

doms, to prohibit Ecclesiastics from taking 
Oaths of Allegiance, and to release all sub- 
jects from the obligation of such oaths to 
their lawful Sovereigns. 

CH. 6. But were these such grievances as 
concerned the Church of England as well as 
the State ? 

21. Yes, certainly, they concerned both; 
and any remonstrance against them was 
treated by the Bishop of Rome as resistance 
to his spiritual authority, and denounced by 
him as heresy: and, in addition to these, 
there were other grievances purely spiritual. 

OH. 7. What were these ? 

21. Sundry Articles of Doctrine promul- 
gated by the Bishop of Rome. 

OH. 8. Specify them. 

21. In the year a. d. 606, Pope Boniface 
the Third, demanded that the Bishop of 
Rome should be recognised by Christendom 
as JEpiscopus JEpiscoporum, or Universal 
Bishop ; A. D. 787, Pope Hadrian the First 
ordered that images should be worshipped ; 
A. D. 1302, Pope Boniface the Eighth de- 
creed that subjection to the Pope was neces- 
sary to salvation ; A. D. 1516, Leo the Tenth 
decreed that the Pope was superior to all 
general councils of the Church. 

(Si. 9. But, although, these tenets were 
novel and false, and were condemned by the 
Church in her Councils, and had been op- 
posed even by Popes of Rome, still, since a 
Church may err and yet continue a Church, 
as we have before seen, (Pt. i. ch. v. Pt. ii. 



SEPARATE FROM THAT OF ROME. 



ch. v.) did the maintenance of these errors 
render all intercourse with the Church of 
Rome impossible ? 

21. No; and, therefore, the Church of 
England though it could not communicate 
with that of Rome in these errors, and was 
hound to reform herself, whatever Rome 
might do, yet she did not separate from her; 
"Nam" as Luther said, " Christum propter 
diabolum non deseri debere;" and, by allow- 
ing her baptism and holy orders, she still 
communicates with her (see above ans. 2. 
below, ch. viii. ans. 1 :) but the fact is, that 
the Church of Rome, so far from showing 
any disposition to reform herself, or even to 
tolerate communion with herself on Scrip- 
tural and Catholic terms, was not satisfied 
with propounding these errors and novelties, 
but proceeded to exact a belief in them from 
all as a necessary condition of communion 
ivith her, and persecuted, excommunicated, 
condemned, and anathematized as heretics 
those who could not believe them : which she 
continues to do to this day; and so what 
separation took place and still exists, was 
occasioned and is still caused, not by the 
Church of England, but by that of Rome, 

<&. 10. When did the Church of Rome 
enforce these Articles as terms of communion 
with herself ? 

21. On several occasions, but especially 
and emphatically at the illegal, uncatholic, 
and uncanonical Council of Trent, when she 
anathematized all who did not believe these 



Chap. 
VII. 




140 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, ETC. 

and other new, unseriptural, and anti-serip- 
tural articles, as necessary to salvation, on 
her authority. 

OH. 11. This was a general denunciation ; 
but has she not gone further than this in her 
conduct towards the Church of England? 

21. Yes. In the year 1535, Pope Paul 
the Third, not only excommunicated the su- 
preme governor of the Church of England, 
Henry the Eighth, but forbad his subjectsto 
obey him, commanded his nobles to rebel 
against him, and ordered all Bishops and 
Pastors to leave England, having first placed 
it under an Interdict. In 1558, Paul the 
Fourth excommunicated and deprived of 
their kingdoms all heretical princes, both 
present and to come. He sent in the same 
year a menacing message to Queen Eliza- 
beth. In 1570, Pius the Fifth (who was 
canonized as a Saint by the Church of Rome 
in the year 1712) issued a Bull denouncing 
and dethroning Queen Elizabeth, and com- 
manding her subjects to rise in insurrection 
against her. Paul V. by his brief, Oct. 1, 
1606, and Urban VIII. by his bull dated 
May 30, 1626, forbad all English Roman 
Catholic subjects to take the oath of allegi- 
ance to their lawful Sovereign, as injurious 
to the Catholic faith; and in the year 1613 
Paul V., and in 1671, Clement the Tenth, 
excommunicated and anathematized the mem- 
bers of all Protestant Churches in a bull 
expressly ratified and renewed by more than 
twenty Popes, and annually read every 



THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, ETC. 141 

Maundy Thursday at Rome till the year Chap. 
1740, and which is still in full force. And VIII. 
in the oath to the Pope which all Roman 
Catholic Bishops now take on their consecra- 
tion, is the following clause, "Hsereticos 
omnes, Schismaticos, et rebelles eidem Domi- 
no nostro (Papae) vel successoribus pro posse, 
persequar et impugnabo." Hence with re- 
spect to the separation from Rome, the 
Church of England non schisma fecit sed 
patitur ; and her members may well say, 
with Bp. Jewell, "Non tarn discessimus, 
quam ejecti sumus ;" and with King James 
the First, " Non fugimus, sedfugamur." 



CHAPTER VIII. 



THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND HAS NEVER BEEN 
SEPARATE FROM THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. 

Kb. 1. You say that the Church of Eng- 
land did not separate herself from that of 
Rome ; but did she not separate herself from 
the Universal Church? and (as St. Augus- 
tine says against the Donatist Schismatics) 
Ecclesia quse non communicat cum omnibus 
gentibus, non est Ecclesia. 

21. The Church of England never separa- 
ted herself from any Catholic Church, much 
less from the Catholic Church: on the con- 




142 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND HAS NEVER 

trary, she reformed herself, in order to 
become again more truly and soundly Catho- 
lic, both in doctrine and discipline ; and so 
far from not communicating with the Catho- 
lic Church, she declares, that "Except a man 
believe faithfully the Catholic faith he cannot 
[Bug.] Art be saved :" she acknowledges the authority 
xx ' of the Catholic Church, she prays daily for 

its "good estate:" she believes nothing that 
the Catholic Church has rejected, and rejects 
nothing that it believes: she -is United in 
faith, hope, and charity with every member 
of it, under Christ the Head of the Church ; 
and she admits the Baptism and Holy Orders 
of the Church of Home, and thus communi- 
cates with her: and as for the comparison 
with the Donatists, it is much more appli- 
cable to a communion like that of Rome, 
which limits the Catholic Church exclusively 
to its own body, which iterates the Sacra- 
ment of Baptism, and repeats Holy Orders, 
as the Donatists did ; and separates herself 
from the Catholic Church, by making new 
ch°v e, aSfl 4' -Articles of Faith, thus in fact excommuni- 
cating herself while in words she excommu- 
nicates others. 

<fil. 2. But can it be said that the Church 
of England communicat cum omnibus genti- 
bus, which was the sign and test of a true 
Church, cited from St. Augustine ? 

21. As was before stated, the Church of 
England communicates in faith and prayers 
with the whole world. If she does not per- 
form all those practical offices of communion 



SEPARATED FROM THAT OF ROME. 143 

with other Churches, which one Church was Chap. 
enabled to discharge to another in the time VIII. 
of St. Augustine, we must bear in mind that v 
the difficulties of actual communion are now 
much greater than at that period, when 
almost all Christendom was under the same 
civil government, and the members of Euro- 
pean, Asiatic, and African Churches, were 
fellow-citizens as well as fellow- Christians, 
speaking one or two languages only, whereas, 
now there are thirty different kingdoms and 
states in Europe alone, with nearly as many 
languages as countries. 

Further, we must remember, that the most 
Catholic of all things is Truth ; (whence the 
Hoord Catholic is opposed by St. Augustine 
and the other fathers of the Church to what 
is false and heretical;) and that, therefore, 1 Tim. iii. 15. 
if the Church of England holds fast the 
Truth, she is united to the Catholic Church. 
" If we walk in the light, we have fellowship uohn i. 7. 
one with another.'' We must also bear in 
mind that true Catholic communion is com- 
munion with the past as well as with the pre- 
sent ; and the Church of England communi- 
cates in doctrine, discipline, and sacraments, 
with the Catholic Church from the begin- 
ning ; and thus she communicates with the 
primitive and apostolic Church of Rome; 
w T hereas the present Romish Church, by her 
corrupt and new doctrines, has, as far as they 
go, put herself out of communion with the 
Truth, with the present Catholic Church, and 
also with her former Catholic self. 



144 




[CHAPTER VIII. Bis.] 

[a supplementary chapter on orders, 
mission, and jurisdiction.] 

[by the amemican editor.] 

(&. i. What are the qualifications for the 
lawful and orderly administration of the 
Word and Sacraments ? 

21. There are two qualifications requisite, * 
orders and mission, which is sometimes im- 
properly called jurisdiction. 

(St. ii. What do you understand by orders ? 

21. I mean an indelible character, received 
by every minister at his ordination, by means 
of which, he has the power of administering 
the Word and Sacraments, and the rites and 
ceremonies of the Church so far as such a 
right properly belongs to that order of minis- 
try to which he has been ordained. 

(fii. iii. How do you know that the charac- 
ter conferred at ordination is indelible ? 

21. Because in no age of the Church, when 
a degraded minister, was to be restored to 
the exercise of his functions, was he reor- 
dained; but his sentence of degradation 
having been relaxed or reversed, he was au- 
thorized to return to his functions. 



AND JURISDICTION. 145 

(Q. iv. Can then a degraded minister exer- Chap. 
cise the functions of his office ? { \IU. 

2V. He can exercise them efficaciously, 
that is, so that they shall produce the effect 
of such functions. Thus, a clergyman or- 
dained by a deposed bishop ought not to be 
reordained, or a child baptized by a deposed 
minister to be rebaptized, or the elements of 
the Holy Eucharist consecrated by a deposed 
priest, to be re-consecrated; because the 
ordination, baptism, and consecration, in 
those cases are valid. But then it is not 
lawful for him, to perform those sacred offices ; 
because as he is prohibited from so doing by 
the Church, such acts are unlawful in him, 
and in those who knowingly participate in 
them with him. In him, because they are 
acts of disobedience to lawful authority; in 
them, because by countenancing him in diso- 
bedience, they become partakers of other 
men's sins. 

(&. v. What do you mean by the power of 
orders being conveyed at ordination to each 
minister so far as it properly belongs to that 
order of the ministry to which he has been 
ordained ? 

21. There are three orders of the ministry ; 
each of which has its own functions; they 
are bishops, priests, and deacons. A bishop 
has powers more extensive than a priest, and 
a priest than a deacon. 

<£l. vi. What are the proper functions of a 
deacon. 

21. "It appertaineth to the Office of a 
18 




146 ORDERS, MISSION, 

Deacon, in the Church where he shall be 

p appointed to serve, to assist the Priest in 

L Divine Service, and specially when he minis- 
office for the " . TT > ^ r . y _ , 

ordering of tereth the Holy Communion, and to help him 
in the distribution thereof ; and to read Holy 
Scriptures and Homilies in the Church; and 
to instruct the youth in the Catechism ; in 
the absence of the Priest to baptize infants;" 
and to preach, if he be admitted thereto by 
the Bishop. And furthermore, it is his 
Office, where provision is so made, to search 
for the sick, poor, and impotent people of the 
Parish, to intimate their estates, names, and 
places where they dwell, unto the Curate, 
that by his exhortation they may be relieved 
with the alms of the Parishioners, or others. 

(d. vii. What are the proper functions of 
a priest ? 

21. To dispense the Word of God and His 
Holy Sacraments, which includes the right 
of deciding who are worthy recipients of the 
same, and thus of remitting and retaining 
sins. . 

(SH. viii. What are the proper functions of 
a bishop ? 

2i. A bishop is a minister of the Word and 
Sacraments, and a pastor of the flock of 
Christ, and, as such, he has all the functions 
of a priest, he is besides, by the uniform 
practice of the Catholic Church, from the 
beginning, the minister of ordination ; from 
which it follows that he alone can pronounce 
sentence of degradation and deposition, dis- 
placement, or suspension, against offending 



A> 7 D JURISDICTION. 147 

ministers. The discipline of the Roman and Chap. 
Anglican communions, has also reserved to ****• 
him the right of administering the Apostolic 
rite of Confirmation and of consecrating 
Churches. They have these functions as the 
successors of the Apostles. 

(Q. ix. Are all bishops then equally succes- 
sors of the Apostles ? 

Si. They are, and they are even sometimes 
spoken of as the successors of St. Peter, be- 
cause they possess the authority which was 
promised to St. Peter as the representative 
of the whole college, and this is acknowledged 
by the Romanist, Van Espen. 

(d. x. What do you mean by mission ? 

Qi. Mission is the right of exercising law- 
fully, the power of ministering the Word and 
Sacraments, which is conferred at ordination, 
and of which we have spoken under the name 
of orders. 

(Q. xi. Does not the possession^ orders 
render the exercise of the powers therein 
comprised lawful ? 

Qi. Ordinarily, the possession of orders, as 
of any other gift, renders its exercise lawful. 
But circumstances may exist, which may 
render the exercise of a gift unlawful. In 
the case before us an ordained minister may 
be said generally to have mission ; because 
he is sent, missus, to exercise his office. But 
if, from any cause, the exercise of it becomes 
unlawful, he can have no mission, because he 
cannot have been sent, missus, to violate the 
law. 




148 ORDERS, MISSION, 

(El. xii. What are the circumstances which 
constitute impediments to the lawful exercise 
of the powers conferred in ordination ? 

21. They are several, and may be divided 
into two classes ; those which operate every 
where, and those w T hich operate at a particu- 
lar place only. 

(El. xiii. What are the general impediments, * 
which deprive an ordained minister of mis- 
sion, every where ? 

21. Firstly, heresy, a heretic is incapable 
of mission, because he cannot have been sent 
to teach his heresy ; secondly, schism, for a 
schismatic cannot have been sent, to rend the 
Body of Christ, and to set up altar against 
altar ; thirdly, apostacy, which includes both 
heresy and schism ; fourthly, excommunica- 
tion, for as it is unlawful for the faithful to 
communicate, in holy things, with the excom- 
municate, it must be unlawful for him to 
minister unto them in holy things; fifthly, 
degradation, or which is the same thing, 
deposition from the ministry, because it 
amounts, until the sentence is reversed, or 
relaxed, to a prohibition by the Church from 
exercising the authority received through 
her; sixthly, suspension, which is a tempo- 
rary deposition, and produces during its con- 
tinuance the same effects. 

(El. xiv. What are the local impediments 
which prevent an ordained minister, from 
having mission in a particular place ? 

21. The want of consent by the person or 
persons, to whose charge the administration 



AND JURISDICTION. 149 

of the Word and Sacraments, in such place, Chap. 
is specially committed. Because such person VIII. 
or persons having been by the authority of v 
the Church, charged with the eure of souls in 
such place, have received mission there in a 
special sense, and is, or are, specially respon- 
sible for the due ministration of the Word 
and Sacraments. The Church, therefore, 
protects such places from the intrusion of 
other ministers, unless by the consent of 
those in charge. No minister can be sent to 
violate the order and law of the Church, or, 
in the words of St. Paul, to stretch himself 
beyond his measure and boast himself, in 2 cor. x. 13. 
another man's line, of things made ready to 15 ' 
his hafcd. 

(EL xv. What is the origin of this allotment 
of particular persons to particular places ? 

Qt. It is supposed to be of Apostolic origin. 
In the beginning, the Apostles had all, equal- 
ly, Episcopal power. They had all mission, 
in every part of the world, by virtue of the 
words: — "Go teach all nations, baptizing Matt, xxyiii. 
them in the name of the Father, and of the 19, 
Son and of the Holy Ghost ;" and again, 
"As my Father sent me even so send I John xx. 21. 
you." " The mission of all and each of them 
was general every where and exclusive no 
where. This was the original state of things, 
but there are traces in the Holy Scriptures, 
particularly in 2 Cor. x. 13, 15, just alluded 
to, of a division among them. Before the 
expiration of the Apostolic age, -however, 
diocesan Episcopacy was instituted, that is to 
13* 




150 ORDERS, MISSION, 

say, certain precincts were cut off from the 
Church at large, to each of which was alloted 
a bishop. Thus, long before the sacred canon 
was closed, James, and Timothy, and Titus, 
were bishops of Jerusalem, Ephesus, and 
Crete. At a later period, these precincts 
came to be called dioceses, and at length * 
each diocese was divided into parishes, to 
each of which was allotted a priest. The 
bishops and priests thus acquired a special 
mission in the dioceses and parishes allotted 
to them, and it became unlawful for other 
ministers to officiate within them without 
their consent. 

(Gt. xvi. Have bishops then the power of 
excluding other clergymen from officiating in 
the dioceses ? 

Qt. So far as it regards other bishops they 
certainly have. ; although it is now usual for 
bishops to officiate, as priests, in each other's 
dioceses, without special permission, on the 
ground that such permission would not be 
refused by any bishop, to another who was 
in communion with him, and might, therefore, 
be well taken for granted. But as to those 
offices, for the performance of which the 
Episcopal character is requisite, no bishop 
performs them, in the diocese of another, 
without a special permission, if the subject, 
upon which the office is to be performed, 
belong to the diocese of the officiating bishop, 
or a special invitation, if it belong to the dio- 
cese within which the act is to be done. 

<2H. xvii. How is it with respect to pres- 
byters and deacons? 



AND JURISDICTION. 151 

21. Originally the presbyters and deacons, Chap. 
of each diocese, were the assistants of the vm - 
bishop, throughout his diocese. They had 
then undoubtedly a special mission to the 
diocese, and to every part of it; which was 
derived directly from that of the Bishop ; but 
they had no exclusive right in any part of the 
diocese. 

(Q. xviii. How is it as respects presbyters 
and deacons belonging to another diocese ? 

2JI. Strictly speaking, a priest or deacon 
cannot officiate in any diocese but that to 
which he belongs, without the permission of 
the bishop of such diocese. So far as stated 
ministrations are concerned, this general prin- 
ciple «fis enforced by the canons of the Ame- 
rican Church. As to occasional ministrations, 
on the invitation of a parish minister, it is 
usual to take the bishop's permission for 
granted. Still, there are good grounds for 
believing that bishops might interpose, and 
forbid presbyters from officiating within their 
dioceses. As to deacons, who have no au- 
thority to preach any where, without the 
license of the bishop of the place, it is clear 
that they cannot do so in any diocese to which 
they do not belong without such leave, for 
the license of their own bishop cannot extend 
beyond the bounds of his diocese. 

(Q. xix. What is the foundation of this right 
of excluding strange clergymen from a dio- 
cese ? , 

21. Each diocesan bishop is charged with 
the cure of souls in his diocese. It follows, 




152 OKDEKS, MISSION, 

that no other person ought, without his per- 
mission to exercise ministerial functions there. 
Moreover, he has a right to choose as his own 
assistants, in the performance of his work, 
men in whom he has confidence. So rigidly 
was this insisted on at first, that presbyters 
and deacons were required to have the leave 
of the bishop for each particular exercise of 
their functions ; but afterwards it was thought 
that they had sufficient authority to act with- 
out express permission, in the diocese to 
which they belonged ; that is, in which they 
had been ordained, or into which they had 
been received by letters dimissory. Within 
that diocese, they might be said to have special 
mission, but not exclusively of the bishop, 
or of their co-presbyters of the diocese. At 
a later period, another step was taken. 
Dioceses were divided into smaller precincts, 
called parishes, to each of which, a priest was 
assigned. 

(&. xx. What is the position of these 
parish priests ? 

21. They have special mission in their 
parishes, exclusive of all other priests and 
deacons, none of whom can officiate within a 
parish, without the consent of its priest. 
This principle is enforced by a canon of the 
American Church. 

(£X. xxi. From whom is the special mission 
of parish priests derived ? 

21. From the bishops. In some branches 
of the Church no presbyter or deacon can 
statedly officiate in any parish, without the 



AND JURISDICTION. 153 

consent of the bishop of the diocese, ex- Chap. 
pressed, either by an act of institution, or ( 
collation, to the cure of souls within such 
parish, or of a written license to officiate 
therein. In most dioceses of the American 
Church, however, it is understood, that a 
bishop, by ordaining a minister or by 
receiving him into his diocese, upon letters 
dimissory from another bishop, gives him the 
same kind of special mission throughout the 
diocese, which the ancient presbyters had 
before the invention of parishes, limited only 
by the rights of the ministers of parishes. 
This is considered to include license to offici- 
ate, statedly or occasionally, in any part of 
the diocese, in which he can do so without 
interfering with the rights of any other min- 
ister. Consequently, he may accept the 
charge of any parish, to which he may be 
called, and may officiate in any congregation, 
in which he may be invited, statedly or occa- 
sionally, to assist the parish minister. The 
right of calling ministers to particular pa- 
rishes, or congregations, is vested in the ves- 
try, as the representatives of the people of 
the parish or congregation. They may call 
any minister who has received special mission 
within the diocese, either by ordination or 
reception. But the special mission, received 
in those modes does not extend beyond the 
bounds of the ordaining or receiving bishop. 
The boundaries of his diocese, are in all 
cases, the limits of a bishop's authority. No 
presbyter, or deacon, can therefore, properly 




154 ORDERS, MISSION, 

be called to any cure, in any other diocese 
than that to which he belongs, until he has 
been received into it by letters dimissory. 
When a minister has been so received, he is 
in the same case with respect to the diocese 
of that bishop, as if he had been ordained by 
him. 

(Si. xxii. Is the special mission of a parish 
priest, exclusive of the bishop of the diocese ? 

Qt. No. The cure of souls throughout the 
whole diocese is solemnly committed to the 
bishop at his consecration. He admits pres- 
byters and deacons to share in this ; and to 
divide their share among themselves, alloting 
to each his proper parish or congregation. 
All the parishes, however, remain portions 
of the diocese within the whole of which the 
bishop has special mission. 

(Si. xxiii. You said that the special mission 
of the parish priest was not exclusive of that 
of the bishop of the diocese. Do you mean 
any thing more, than that the bishop of the 
diocese, has a right to exercise, within the 
parish, the peculiar offices of the Episcopate ? 

Qt. Most certainly I do. The bishop is not 
a mere instrument to perform Episcopal offi- 
ces ; he is a minister of the Word and Sacra- 
ments, to whose charge is committed the 
people of his whole diocese, and is the chief, 
although not the sole, pastor of that diocese. 
He is bound, and has, therefore, a right, to 
administer the Word and Sacraments to all 
those committed to his charge. This right 
is not exclusive of that which he has concre- 



AND JURISDICTION. 155 

dited to the Parochial Clergy ; but neither is Chap. 
that right exclusive of his. In fact it would VIII. 
be absurd, to suppose that a bishop could v 
release himself of his duty to his people, by 
transferring it to others. While the duty 
remains, the right, which is the consequence 
of that duty, must remain also. 

(CI. xxiv. Does it not then seem that mis- 
sion may be possessed in three modes ? 

21. Yes ; generally, by all lawfully ordained 
ministers who are not heretics, or schisma- 
tics, and are not under the censures of the 
Church; specially but not exclusively, by 
presbyters or deacons who are connected with 
a diocese, but not with a parish or congrega- 
tion ; specially and exclusively by bishops of 
dioceses, and ministers of parishes. 

(El. xxv. Can you illustrate the distinction 
between general and special mission ? 

21. A bishop or priest, who is in possession 
of a diocese or parish, has both general and 
special mission. A bishop or priest who is 
not connected with any diocese, has general 
mission, but not special mission. A bishop 
or priest who is under suspension, or has 
been degraded or excommunicated has nei- 
ther. Thus, a bishop or priest who has both, 
may divest himself of his special misssion by 
resigning his cure, but still retain his general 
mission. Should he be suspended, degraded, 
or excommunicated he would lose that also. 
If his sentence were terminated, relaxed or 
reversed, he would again have general, 
although not special, mission, but if he were 




156 ORDERS, MISSION, 

afterwards lawfully placed in a cure he would 
have both. 

(*H. xxvi. A minister may then have gen- 
eral mission without special. May he also 
have special mission, without general ? 

QL No ; for without general mission he 
has no right to minister any where, and can 
have consequently no special right to minis- 
ter in a particular place. 

<&. xxvii. How is general mission given ? 

21. General mission is given in a lawful 
ordination ; orders are given in a valid ordi- 
nation. 

(&. xxviii. What is the difference between 
a valid and a lawful ordination ? 

21. A valid ordination is one performed 
by a bishop, who, having the indelible cha- 
racter of Episcopacy, is able to ordain. A 
lawful ordination, is one performed by a 
bishop who has a lawful and canonical right 
to exercise his power of ordaining, at the 
time and place at which the ordination was 
performed, and upon the tjerson ordained. 

(St. xxix. Why is not mission given at a 
valid but unlawful ordination ? 

21. Because the unlawful ordination being 
performed in defiance of the authority of the 
Church, she withholds the lawful use of that 
power which has been unlawfully acquired. 

(El. xxx. How is special mission given ? 

21. That sort of special mission, which is 
not exclusive, and belongs to a presbyter or 
deacon who is not connected with any parish 
or congregation, by virtue of his connexion 



AND JURISDICTION. 157 

with a diocese, is given, as we have seen, in Chap. 
two ways. By ordination, or, in the case of **"• 
one who is already ordained, by receiving 
him intp the diocese in a canonical man- 
ner. The special mission of a bishop is 
given, ordinarily, by consecration. But in 
the case of one who is already a bishop, 
it is given by election and confirmation. 
That sort of special mission which belongs 
to a parish minister is given by institution, 
or collation, or Episcopal license, or in dio- 
ceses where the local law allows of it by 
election. But in the last case it can only be 
acquired by one who has already received 
the other sort of special mission from the 
bishop of the diocese. 

(CX. xxxi. You said that special mission is 
given to one who is already a bishop, by elec- 
tion and confirmation, what do you mean by 
election and confirmation ? 

21. A bishop must always be elected to his 
diocese, by some lawful authority. In Scot- 
. land, he is elected by the clergy of his dio- 
cese, in England, formally at least, by the 
dean and chapter, in Ireland and the British 
colonies, by the Sovereign, claiming to repre- 
sent the laity, in America by the diocesan 
convention, consisting of the clergy and lay 
delegates from every parish or congregation. 
But every where, except in Ireland and the 
British colonies, such elections must be con- 
firmed, by some authority before they are 
effectual. In the Roman Obedience, all elec- 
tions ' must be confirmed by the Pope. In 




158 ORDERS, MISSION, 

the Church of England, they receive a 
formal confirmation in the name of the Arch- 
bishop of the province. In the United 
States, although the word " confirmation" is 
not used, elections are required to be really 
confirmed by the General Convention, or, if 
it is not in session, or to sit within a year, by 
a majority of the Standing Committees, and 
of the bishops. Confirmations have two 
objects, to ascertain, that the election has 
been properly conducted, and that the person 
chosen is a suitable person. 

(JH. xxxii. Whence do bishops derive their 
special mission? 

21. In one sense they derive it from the 
Catholic Church, which sanctions, by her 
laws and usages, the division of her territory 
into dioceses, and protects each diocese from 
the intrusion of bishops, other than its own. 
In another sense, they derive it from the 
particular Church to which they belong, 
which by her laws, regulates the boundaries 
of dioceses, and points out the mode, in 
which prelates are to be selected to fill them. 
In a third sense, they derive it from the 
authority, whatever it may be, to which the 
laws of the particular Church confide the 
selection. In a fourth sense they derive it 
from the neighbouring or comprovincial, 
bishops, by whom, or by whose consent, they 
are consecrated, and from whom they thus 
receive the power of order, and the general 
mission, which are necessary pre-requisites 
for the possession of special mission, and by 



AND JURISDICTION. 159 

whose assent they are put into possession of Chap. 
the territory within which their special mis- ^ VI11, 
sion isto be exercised. 

(Q. xxxiii. Do you mean to say, that any 
of these is the ultimate source from which 
mission is derived? 

21. No. The ultimate source from whence, 
bishops, priests, and deacons derive orders, 
mission, jurisdiction, and every other gift 
which they possess for the good of the 
Church, is " Almighty God Giver of all good 
things," Who, by " His Holy Spirit," has, 
" appointed divers orders of ministers in the 
Church," and by His Divine Providence, 
calls individual men to those orders, and 
designates the portions of the Church in 
w T hich they are to serve, and Who, in His 
Holy Gospel, has given power to His Church 
to enact laws for the distribution of Ecclesi- 
astical authority. 

(fit. xxxiv. You say that particular 
Churches determine the boundaries of dio- 
ceses. In what manner ? 

%. Sometimes by direct laws ; sometimes 
by acquiescing in the boundaries, directly or^ 
indirectly, assigned to them by civil authority.' 

(&. xxxv. Is the mission of a bishop con- 
fined to his diocese ? 

2i. No ; within his diocese he has special 
mission, but he has also general mission, by 
virtue whereof he may exercise his functions 
in the diocese of another bishop, by his invi- 
tation or permission, or, if not prohibited by 
the laws of the particular Church to which 




160 ORDERS, MISSION, 

he belongs, in a vacant diocese, or in the dio- 
cese of a bishop under suspension, or in any 
place, which, not being included in any dio- 
cese, is without the advantage of a bishop. 
The reason of all this is, that bishops, like 
the Apostles, have the Commission to "go 
into all the world and preach the Gospel to 
every creature, baptizing them in the name 
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
Holy Ghost;" and have also been sent by 
Christ, our Lord, even as his Father sent 
him. Although, therefore, they have, for the 
more convenient exercise of their commis- 
sion, parcelled out the world into dioceses, 
they still retain the right of acting on their 
old commission, in any place in which it can 
be done without infringing on the rights ac- 
quired under that arrangement. In the ex- 
ecution of this right, it is competent for any 
bishop, to join with any other bishops in 
consecrating a bishop for any part of the 
world, which is destitute of a bishop. The 
ancient usage of the Church, however, is 
that bishops succeeding to sees, which al- 
ready exist, and have become vacant, shall be 
consecrated only by the neighbouring, or 
comprovincial bishops. This usage has been 
confirmedjpy many ancient canons, and could 
not properly be departed from, unless under 
very peculiar circumstances. 

(fil. xxxvi. Were the consecrators of Arch- 
bishop Parker the comprovincial bishops ? 

21. Perhaps, strictly speaking, they were 
not ; they were not in possession of any sees. 



AND JURISDICTION. 161 

GH. xxxvii. Did not their consecration of Chap. 
him, then, violate the ancient canons of which viil. 
you have spoken ? 

Qt. It was a case of necessity. There 
was but one bishop in the Province of Can- 
terbury in possession of a see. He refused, 
as is supposed, to be one of Parker's conse- 
crators, but consented, passively at least, to 
his consecration by others. Many questions 
might arise, as to the rightfulness or wrong- 
fulness of the deprivation of the other 
bishops, and as to whether or not they had 
still the right of comprovincial bishops ; but 
two things are clear, that the diocese of Can- 
terbury was vacant, and that those bishops 
claiming to be comprovincials, who refused 
to consecrate Parker, did so because they 
wanted to maintain the uncanonical power of 
the Bishop of Rome. Under these circum- 
stances, it became an act of necessity and 
charity to consecrate him, and one which 
might be done by any bishops having orders 
and general mission. 

<&. xxxviii. Suppose the consecration of 
Parker was irregular, would that affect the 
special mission of the present English 
bishops ? 

31. No. All the dioceses in England be- 
fore the close of the sixteenth century be- 
came vacant, by the deaths of those who had 
"filled them in the reign of Mary, if they 
were not previously so by their deprivations. 
England then became a country destitute of 
diocesan bishops, and her dioceses might be 
14* 




162 ORDERS, MISSION, 

filled by any consecrated bishops who had 
general mission, whom the people were wil- 
ling to receive, and who were willing to ac- 
cept the charge. In other words, on the 
death of the last of the Marian bishops, all 
obstacles to the exercise of the mission of the 
English bishops, if any such existed, within 
their respective dioceses ceased, so far as 
they arose from the exclusive rights of com- 
provincial bishops. The whole question, in 
fact, resolved itself into whether there could 
be a lawful bishop in England without the 
consent of the Pope. 

(EL xxxix. You speak of necessity and 
charity as justifying bishops in acting as 
such beyond the boundaries of their proper 
dioceses. How is that ? 

2t. It is like the case of the observation 
of the Sabbath mentioned by our Blessed 
Saviour, only stronger; for the law of the 
division of the world into dioceses is a hu- 
man law, while the law of the Sabbath was 
Divine. As a human law, it should give way 
to the Divine law of charity. 

(&. xl. But if necessity will not authorize 
ordination by presbyters, so as to make the 
acts of those so ordained valid, how can 
necessity and charity authorize such ordina- 
tions by a bishop as are contrary to law, so as 
to make the acts of those so ordained valid ? 

Ql. Because bishops have a power of or- 
daining inherent in their office ; which is 
effectual whenever it is exerted. This power 
they may by law be restrained from exer- 



AND JURISDICTION. 163 

cising under certain circumstances, and al- Chap. 
though, if they violate such laws their ordi- v 
nations are valid, yet still they ought to be 
obeyed ; unless where necessity or charity re- 
quire that they should for the time stand 
aside. Bishop Wilson, in his notes on 
Matt, xii., well says, " Positive laws cease to 
oblige four ways ; first, by the natural law of 
necessity, [ver. 3, 4 ;] secondly, by a superior 
law designed to set that aside, [ver. 5 ;] 
thirdly, by the law of mercy and charity, 
[ver. 7 ;] and lastly, by the legislator him- 
self, [ver. 8."] But all this is inapplicable to 
the case of presbyterial ordinations; which 
are not merely unlawful, because prohibited, 
but invalid, for w T ant of power; which can 
no more be supplied by necessity, than the 
necessity of the disciples could enable them 
to create bread. The law which prohibited 
them from plucking the ears of corn on the 
Sabbath day gave way before their neces- 
sity ; but that necessity gave them no crea- 
tive power, nor any power w T hich they had 
not before ; it only removed the obstacle which 
the law had placed, in the way of their exer- 
cising their natural powers. 

(El. xli. Is it by virtue of this general mis- 
sion that bishops consecrate the first bishops 
of new dioceses ? 

21. Yes ; but when a new diocese is formed, 
in connexion with any organized, national, or 
provincial Church, or any combination of di- 
oceses, the bishop of the new diocese, must 
be consecrated according to the laws of such 




164 ORDERS, MISSION, 

Church or combination, and by its bishops. 
This is in analogy with the rule which ordi- 
narily restricts the right of consecrating 
bishops elected to succeed those who have 
died, to the comprovincial bishops. 

(&. xlii. How are new dioceses formed ? 

Ql. Either by division of old ones, in which 
mode the diocese of Western New York in 
the United States, and those of Ripon and 
Manchester in England,and that of Toronto 
in Canada, and several others in the British 
dependencies, have been formed in very 
recent times, and others in all ages of the 
Church, or, by foundation in a place which 
was not previously a part of any diocese, as 
was the case with the dioceses of Rome, Lon- 
don, Indiana, Wisconsin, and many others, 
both ancient and modern. 

CU. xliii. By what authority are new dio- 
ceses formed ? 

Ql. When they are formed by the division 
of dioceses, there must be the consent of the 
bishop and of the national and provincial 
Church, or combination of dioceses, within 
which the diocese, or dioceses, to be divided 
lies or lie. In addition to this, the American 
Church requires the assent of the Conventions 
of the diocese or dioceses to be divided. 
Sometimes a new diocese is to be founded 
upon territory not previously contained with- 
in any diocese, but in which the Church has 
been planted by the labours of some provincial 
or national Church, of which it is designed 
that the new diocese shall be a part ; a case 



AND JURISDICTION. 165 

which has frequently occurred in the United Chap. 
States. The new diocese is then formed by ^ VIII. 
the joint assent of the clergy and people 
living therein, and of the provincial or na- 
tional Church. When a new diocese is to be 
founded upon territory not at all connected 
with any existing Church, as in Africa, for 
instance, in which case there are sometimes 
no Christian people within the intended dio- 
cese, it may be considered as founded by the 
joint assent of the bishop consecrated for it, 
and of the bishops who consecrated him, using 
their power of general mission, in a case of 
necessity and charity, and of the Christian 
people, who, either before or after the con- 
secration, agree to receive the newly conse- 
crated prelate as their bishop. 

(El. xliv. In the last case whence does the 
new bishop derive his special mission ? 

21. In the first sense, like all other bishops, 
from the Catholic Church. In the second, 
from the Catholic Church, which authorizes 
^bishops to enclose, as it were, new dioceses, 
from the conquests, which she makes from 
the world. In the third sense, from the peo- 
ple, who voluntarily submit to his authority. 
In the fourth sense from the consecrating 
bishops. In the fifth and highest sense from 
God Himself. 

(JH. xlv. You said that mission was some- 
times improperly called jurisdiction. What 
is the proper meaning of the word ? 

21. Jurisdiction is a Latin word, which re- 
duced to its elements, juris dictio y means a 




166 ORDERS, MISSION, 

speaking or declaring the law. Its primary 
meaning is a right to declare the law. It is 
also used, in law, for the limits within which 
any tribunal may declare the law, and that in 
two senses ; first, as when a particular class 
of cases is said to be within the jurisdiction 
of a particular tribunal ; and again, for the 
territory over which the authority of the tri- 
bunal extends. The last sense has, in com- 
mon usage, been generalized, so as to apply 
to the territory within which any kind of au- 
thority may be lawfully exercised. Eccle- 
siastically, the word is used in five senses. 
Firstly, in that just mentioned, for the ter- 
ritory over which any Ecclesiastical person 
may exercise Ecclesiastical authority ; Se- 
condly, for that Ecclesiastical authority which 
we have called special mission; Thirdly, by 
accommodation from the last sense, for mission 
generally ; Fourthly, for that portion of the 
authority of a bishop which is not insepar- 
able from his Episcopal order. In this sense 
it is contradistinguished from mission ; Lastly, 
Mason seems, to use it for the power of order 
itself. 

(&. xlvi. Does no inconvenience arise from 
this use of one word in so many senses ? 

21. Yes : the whrole subject of which we are 
treating, is very much perplexed by that 
practice, and by the indiscriminate use of the 
word mission, for the right of exercising the 
power of orders generally, and for that of ex- 
ercising it in a particular place. 

<JH. xlvii. What do you mean by that por- 



AND JURISDICTION. 167 

lion of the authority of a bishop which is not Chap. 
inseparable from his Episcopal order ? VIII. 

21. The authority of a bishop consists of 
three parts ; Firstly, that which belongs to 
him as a minister of the Word and Sacra- 
ments, in common with other priests ; Se- 
condly, that which is peculiar to the Epis- 
copal order and can be exercised only by a 
consecrated bishop, in person, that is to say, 
confirmation, consecration of churches, and 
ordination, deposition, and suspension of 
ministers ; Thirdly, those powers of govern- 
ment, which although properly belonging to 
the bishop, as the chief Ecclesiastical autho- 
rity of the diocese, may be performed by 
persons not of the Episcopal order, either by 
delegation from a bishop, or in a vacant dio- 
cese. These are powers belonging to the dis- 
cipline of the Church, and consist in the trial 
of offenders, in the pronouncing or reversing 
sentences of excommunication, in absolving 
excommunicates upon repentance, in dis- 
missing, with their own consent, priests and 
deacons to other dioceses, and in receiving 
them, on letters dimissory, from other dioceses, 
and in granting institutions or licenses, where 
such proceedings are required. 

(fit. xlviii. Whence is this kind of juris- 
diction derived ? 

21. From the same sources as special mis- 
sion. 

(&. . xlix. By whom is this kind of juris- 
diction exercised in the vacancy of a diocese ? 

21. In the Churches of England and Rome, 




168 THE BISHOP OF ROME HAS 

it is exercised during the interval between 
the occurrence of a vacancy and the con- 
firmation of the bishop elect, by the guardian 
of the spiritualities. In the Church of Eng- 
land this is in some cases the Archbishop of 
the Province, in others the Dean and Chapter 
of the diocese, or that of the archiepiscopal 
see, if that see should be vacant. In the 
interval between the confirmation and con- 
secration, it is exercised in the Churches 
both of England and Rome, by the bishop 
elect and confirmed, but not yet consecrated. 
In the United States, during the whole in- 
terval between the occurrence of the vacancy 
and the consecration of the new bishop, it is 
exercised by the Standing Committee of the 
vacant diocese. 



CHAPTER IX. 



THE BISHOP OF ROME HAS NO SUPREMACY, 
SPIRITUAL OR TEMPORAL, IN THESE 
REALMS. 

<&. 1. Although the Church of England 
is united in origin, doctrine, and discipline, 
with the Catholic Church, and although she 
is not, as the Church of England, dependent 
on that of Rome, yet is not the Bishop of 
Rome the successor of St. Peter ? and did 




NO SUPREMACY IN THESE REALMS. 169 

not our Lord give to that Apostle universal 
supreme authority over His Church? and has. 
not, therefore, the Bishop of Home authority 
over the Church of England as a part of the 
Catholic Church ? 

91. Although we should allow that St. 
Peter was Bishop of Rome, and not rather of 
Antioch, and that the Bishop of Borne is the 
successor of St. Peter, and that he inherits 
by office what was given to St. Peter in per- 
sen, for a special purpose, (see below, ans. 2 
and 3,) yet we are clear that Christ gave no 
pre-eminent power to St. Peter over his bro- 
ther Apostles ; but that all the Apostles were 
equal in the quality of their mission, commis- 
sion, power, and honour. 

(Q. 2. But does not St. Peter appear in 
Holy Scripture as taking the lead of the 
Apostles, and speaking in their behalf? and 
is he not designated by titles of special dig- 
nity in the writings of the early Fathers of 
the Church ? 

21. Yes, doubtless he is ; as are some of 
the other Apostles, especially St. Paul, who 
"had the care of all the Churches." But 2 cor. xi. 28. 
we must not confound primacy with supre- 
macy. St. Peter often appears as first in 
order among his brethren, but never as higher 
in place than the rest of the Apostles ; as 
Primus inter pares, not as summus supra 
inferior es. 

(£1. 3. What, then, are we to say to the 
words of Christ to St. Peter, " Verily Jsa^/Matt.xvi.18. 
15 




170 THE BISHOP OF ROME HAS 

unto thee, Thou art Peter and on this rock 
1 1 will build my Church?''' 

%. First, that although in a certain sense 
the Church may be said to be built on St. 
Peter, as confessing Christ in the name of 
is. xxviii. 16. the other Apostles, and so, through them, of 
S x C x 1 viii.'22. the whole Christian world, and thus showing 
Matt.xxi.42. the xj NITY f t he Church, and that its founda- 
tion is the true Apostolic Faith confessed 
with one mind and one mouth, yet the Church 
is built not on St. Peter, but on Christ : Tor 
1 cor. iii. ii.] " other foundation can no man lay than that 
fv. \ es '.i.' 20 ' is laid, Jesus Christ," " Who gave (not one 
Apostle but) Apostles, for the edifying (or 
building) of His Church," which is built not 
Rev. xxi. 14 n one Apostle, but " on the foundation of the 
Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Him- 
self being the chief corner-stone." Unity in 
the Faith is the solidity of the Church ; but 
the Rock on which it is built is Christ. 

<2U. 4. But is not St. Peter called by our 
Lord the Rock of his Church, in the words 
just cited ? 
K^i^u. ^- No - St. Peter was m'fpoj, a stone; 
6zit£uoc and hence he and the other Apostles with 
•hiBoi. him are called in Scripture the Twelve Founda- 
tion Stones of the Church; hence St. Paul 
speaks of himself as " having laid the founda- 
tion, as a wise master-builder" of " God's 
building," but Christ was % mVpa, the Hock, 
out of which St. Peter and they were hewn, 
i cor. iii. io. an( j on w hich they were built. Tu es Petrus, 
quia ego Petra, as St. Augustine explains 
the words, neque enim, he says, a Petro 



NO SUPREMACY EN THESE Ri: • 171 

Petra, sod a Petra Petrus ; and again, Cir.vr. 
Petrus ce-dificatur super Petram, non Petra ^* 
er Pet rum. — / • 

<£>. 5. But did not our Lord use (not the xxvili! ie. 
Greek, but) the Syro Chaldaic language in xxxiii - 16 - 
His speech to St. Peter, in which there is 
no such difference of genders as between 
Petrus and Petra ? 

01. He did ; but this objection, from the 
character of the Syriac tongue, as has been 
shown, has no weight ; and we must remem- 
ber, that St. Matthew's G-reek account of our 
Lord's speech is divinely inspired, and must 
be understood in its literal and grammatical 
sense ; and in that sense, in w T hich it has 
been always understood by the Church, and 
which has been now expressed. 

(Q. 6. But what do you say to the words 
which follow ; " And 1 will give unto thee the Matt.xvi. 19. 
keys of the kingdom oj 'heaven, and whatsoever 
thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in 
heaven, and ivhatsoever thou shalt loose on 
earth shall be loosed in heaven ?" was not the 
Power of the Keys, as it is called, (see above, 
pt. i. ch. xiii.) here given by Christ to Peter ? 
and in him to his successors, the Bishops of 
Rome? 

2i. Yes, but not more so than to the rest 
of the Apostles. Christ gave that power to 
the Church, when He said, " Tell it to the Matt. xvm. 
Church; but if he neglect to hear the Church, sleeve, 
let him be unto thee as an heathen;" and pt L ch - xiiL 
having said these words, He proceeded to de- 
clare by whom this power was to be exer- 




172 THE BISHOP OF ROME HAS 

cised, viz., by all His Apostles and their 
successors "even to the end of the world." 
'Verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall 
bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and 
whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be 
loosed in heaven:" and again, after His 

John xx. 22. Resurrection, " He breathed on them, and 
saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost ; 
whosesoever sins ye remit, they are re- 
mitted ; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they 
are retained." It would be a contradiction 
of these words, to say that the Power of the 
Keys was given specially to St. Peter and 
his successors ; and it is the concurrent lan- 
guage of all Christian Antiquity that he re- 
ceived that power as a figure of the Church 
in her Unity as all the Apostles did in her 
Universality. It was not one man in the 
Church, but the Church in one man which 
received the keys ; and our Lord's words were 

1 cor. v. 4. addressed to Peter, as representing by his 
Faith, by his Office, and by his Acts, all the 
Apostles and their Successors, as one of the 
Bishops of Rome, Leo the Great, says ; and, 
St. Ambrose, In beato Petro claves has regni 
coelorum cuncti suscepimus sacerdotes. 

johnxxi.15. (£i t 7 # R u t did not Christ give supreme 
power to St. Peter when He said to him, Feed 
my sheep ? 

21. No ; these words were not so much 
verba ordinandi, as verba hortandi ; and did 
not affect the general commission before given 
by Christ to all His Apostles in a solemn act 
of consecration. Whence St. Paul says to the 



NO SUPREMACY IN THESE REALMS, 173 

Presbyters at Ephesus, " Take heed to the Chap. 
flock over which the Holy Ghost has made IX * 
you overseers, to feed the Church of God, - v ' 
which He hath -purchased with His own 22 m 
blood ;" and St. Peter, " The elders I exhort, tt™:\\ 
who am also an elder, Feed the flock of God 
which is among you, taking the oversight 
thereof, not by constraint, but willingly." 
Wherefore, as St. Augustine says, quitm 
Petro dicitur, ad omnes dicitur, Pasce oves 
Meas. 

(Q. 8. Since, as has been before said (pt. 
i. ch. x. ans. 15,) the best commentary on a 
law is contemporary and successive practice, 
what conclusion do we derive from it with 
respect to the alleged supremacy of St.Peter? 

2L As it is certain a priori, that St. Peter 
could have no supremacy over the other 
Apostles, from the fact that Christ did not 
authorize but did plainly prohibit, such a su- 
premacy, when He told His Apostles, " that Matt. xx. 25. 
the kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship Skexxii.25. 
over them [the Grentiles,) but it should not &e Mart If if 6 ' 
so with" them; and again, "whosoever will^ &tt ' xxm ' s ' 
be great among you, let him^be your minis- Nztt.xix.28. 
ter :" and "he that is greatest among you^ y e xx\!u.' 
shall be your servant;" and that they had 
' One Master Jesus Christ and that they 
were Brethren ;" and again, when He spake 
to them of twelve thrones,*and not one throne, 
thus placing them on an equality ; and thes.chrysos.in 
wall of the Church in the Revelation has loc * 
"twelve foundations, and in them the names Acts xv. 13. 
of the twelve Apostles;" so it is also clear, 
15* 




174 THE BISHOP OF ROME HAS 

a posteriori, that St. James who took the 
f lead at a Council, that of Jerusalem, at which 
St. Peter was present, and in which St. Peter 
took part as one of. the speakers, knew no- 
thing of such a supremacy in St. Peter ; that 
St. Paul knew nothing of it, who said that 
^cor.xi.5. «fr e himself was not a whit behind the very 
xii. 11. * chief est Apostles ;" and that he had " the care 
Gai. £.9.14.' of all the Churches,'" and who says accord- 
ingly, " so I ordain in all the Churches;" 
who classes Peter with James and John, who 
withstood St. Peter and rebuked him to his 
face and who rebukes certain of the Corin- 
lCor. i. 12. thians for saying, " I am of Cephas;" and 
that St. Peter himself knew nothing of it, 
who was sent by the authority of the Apos- 
Actsviii. 14. ties to Samaria; and who speaks of "us the 
Apostles," as his compeers, not inferiors, and 
of Christ, "the living Stone;" and who 
i Pet. ii. 5. writes on terms of equality, and not of supe- 
t. i. riority, as " a Ir other-Elder" to Elders. And, 

to descend to St. Peter's Successors, it is 
certain also that St. Polycarp, Bishop of 
Smyrna, knew nothing of such a supremacy 
in Pope Anicetus ; that Polycrates, Bishop of 
Ephesus, and the synod of Asiatic Bishops, 
and St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, and the 
Council assembled in that city, knew nothing 
of any such supremacy in Pope Victor ; that 
St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, and the 
African Bishops, knew nothing of it in Pope 
Stephanus ; that St. Augustine and the 
Bishops v of Africa knew nothing of it in 
Popes Zosimus and Boniface ; and that the 



NO SUPREMACY IN THESE REALMS. 175 

Bishops of Rome themselves for six hundred Chap. 
years were so far from knowing any thing of ( 
such supremacy as residing in themselves or 
in any one else, that Pope Gregory the First 
denounced the title of Universal Bishop as 
arrogant, wicked, schismatical, blasphemous, 
and anti-Christian ; " Quisquis se universa- 
le))! sacerdotem vocat" says he, "Anti- Chris- 
tum prdecurrit." (Lib. vii. Epist. xxxiii.) 

(Q. 9. Has then the Bishop of Rome no 
peculiar jurisdiction w T hich does not belong to 
another Bishop ? 

%. Every Bishop possesses the highest 
spiritual authority in his own diocese, with 
respect to the ordinary affairs of his own 
Church ; and all Bishops, as Bishops are 
equal, whatever their dioceses may be. As 
St. Jerome, the secretary of a Pope (Dama- 
sus,) says, — Ubicunque est Episcopus, sive 
Romse, sive Eugubii, ejusdem est meriti, ejus- 
dem sacerdotii: potentia divitiarurn et pau- 
pertatis humilitas sublimiorem vel inferiorem 
Episcopum non facit. On account of the 
civil eminence of Rome, the Bishop of Rome, 
as has been before stated (pt. i. ch. xii. ans. 
18,) anciently enjoyed precedence among 
Bishops, by the Canons of the Catholic 
Church ; but his jurisdiction as Bishop, Me- 
tropolitan, and Patriarch, was and is limited 
to his own Diocese, Province, and Patriar- 
chate, in the same manner as that of every 
other Bishop, Metropolitan, and Patriarch. 

(El. 10. But it being granted that the 
Bishop of Rome cannot claim supreme juris- 




176 THE BISHOP OF ROME HAS 

diction over the Universal Church as a mat- 
t ter of right, still is it not expedient for the 
maintenance of Unity in the Church, that 
it should have One Supreme Visible Head? 
Above, pt. l 2i. Christ, the Universal Lord of the 
c .n.ans. . Qkurch, an( j foe lover of Unity, never insti- 
tuted one. Let all the States of the earth 
be placed under One Civil Ruler, and then 
let the trial be made. If such a personal su- 
premacy was not thought expedient by the 
Church when the greater part of the civilized 
world was under One Temporal Governor 
(the Emperor of Rome,) it cannot be thought 
so now T , when, as was before said, there are 
about thirty different States and Kingdoms 
in Europe alone ; if it was not desirable at a 
time when the range of Christendom and of 
the known world was comparatively narrow, 
it cannot be so, when the limits of both have 
been enlarged to a vast extent, and are be- 
coming more and more intricate and compre- 
hensive ; and if it was even condemned as 
Above, v^^- anti- Christian, before its effects had been 
2. ' ' ' seen, it cannot be reasonable to desire it now, 
when the world has had bitter experience of 
its tendency to promote disunion instead of 
peace, both in spiritual and secular affairs. 

(El. 11. In what respects has this tendency 
shown itself ? 

21. The claim of universal spiritual head- 
ship naturally leads to that of secular su- 
premacy, which is, indeed, essential to render 
the former reasonable: and the fact has 
been, and is, that, in defiance of Reason and 



NO SUPREMACY IN THESE REALMS. 177 

Scripture, the Bishop of Rome, on the ground, Chap. 
in the first place, of spiritual, and then of IX. 

temporal^ supremacy, asserts a right to de-^ — v ' 

pose princes, to dispose of their dominions, J^v.*".' 13 ' 
and to impose oaths on their subjects incon- A J> ov .e» p*- »• 
sistent with, and contrary to, their duty to 4, et seq. 
their lawful sovereign ; and thus does all in l Pet. ± is. 
his power to annul the obligations of civil 
allegiance, and to dissolve the bonds of civil 
society. 

<&. 12. You have spoken of the secular 
evils of such a headship ; what are the spirit- 
ual ones? 

Ql. It destroys Unity in the Church on 
the plea of preserving it. It pretends to be 
the Centre of Unity, but is the Source of 
Confusion to all Christendom. It rejects the 
wisdom, revokes the judgments, and annihi- 
lates the authority of the IJniversal Church, 
as represented in General Councils, by its 
claim to n^ative and rescind their decrees ; 
ft claims infallibility, but not only has it 
erred grievously but it reduces the Church to 
a perpetual necessity of erring by committing 
it to the uncontrolled will of one man; it 
destroys the Order and Jurisdiction of Bishops, ?«J- L h "-J- 

, ^ , . ,, . -(. 1 2 Cor. xi. .28. 

by resolving all into its power : and so dis- 
honours Christ, from whom they derive their 
power, and deprives the Apostles of their le- 
gitimate posterity and succession ; thus per- 
verting the character of the Church from 
Apostolic into Papal, and degrading Bishops Abot i# 
into its own Vassals, as is evident from the <*• ?▼■ JJf 8 -.?- 
oath now imposed upon Bishops by the Pope ans. r. 




178 THE BISHOP OF HOME HAS 

of Rome, which fully confirms the prophetic 
speech of Pope Gregory the First to the 
Bishops of Greece, " Si unus universalis est, 

^wi'ais 11 ' restat ut vos LJpiscopi non sitis." (Epist. lib. 

10 -' " v. 68. torn. p. 984.) 

(CX. 13. But since it cannot be by claims 
of the Pope, how, then, is the Unity of the 
Church to be preserved ? 

Eph.jv.4-6. ^ gk p au i informs us. " There is one 

Body, and one Spirit, and one Hope of our 
calling ; one Lord one Faith, one Baptism ; 
one G-od and Father of us all." He does not 
add, " One Visible Head." Let all the mem» 
icor.xii.28. bers of the Catholic Church be " joined to- 
Matt^xViii.' gether in the same mind and in the same 
Actsxv. 2. judgment," let them " walk by the same rule, 
28.xvi.4. an( j m i n( j the same thing," let them be united 
in the same Faith, in the same Sacraments, 
and in the same Apostolic Discipline and 
Grovernment ; let t;hem communicate, with one 
another by means of their lawful Bishops, in 
National and in General Councils, according 
to the institution of Christ, and to universal 
primitive practice ; let them all, each in his 
own sphere, " endeavour to maintain the unity 
of the Spirit in the bond of peace ;" and they 
will then enjoy the blessing of primitive Chris- 
tian Unity. But they will never attain this 
Unity by subjection to one supreme visible 
Head, of which the Primitive Church knew 
nothing ; and especially they cannot expect 
it from subjection to such a supreme visible 
Head as subverts the Ancient Faith by a 
New Creed, mutilates the Sacraments, de- 



NO SUPREMACY IN THESE REALMS. 179 

stroys Apostolic government, and sets at Ciiap. 
naught the authority of the Church in her IX * 
Synods, and having thus dissolved all the 
bands of Unity, proceeds to exact an implicit 
subjection to all these Innovations and In- 
fractions, as an essential condition of Commu- 
nion with itself, as a test of Church Mem- 
bership, and as necessary to eternal salvation. 
(See also above on this subject, pt. i. ch. ii. 
and pt. i. ch. ix at end.) 



PART III. 

BY THE AMEEICAN EDITOR. 

®t)e fijistorg, Constitution, anb Ctitril delations 
of the ^mzxitan <&t)\xxtt). 



CHAPTER I. 

OF THE ORIGIN AND EARLY HISTORY OF THE 
AMERICAN CHURCH. 

Part (£}. i. What was the origin of the American 

Church ? 

QL The American Church was founded by 
members of the Church of England, who mi- 
grated from that country Jo America, among 
the colonists who founded those provinces 
which became the United States. 

(&. ii. As the Church of England was the 
established Church in England, and the 
greater part of the population of that coun- 
try were its members ; how happens it that 
the Church is not the most numerous denomi- 
nation in the United States ? 

Qt. In Maryland and Virginia and perhaps 
in South Carolina, it was once so; that it was 
not in other colonies was the result of va- 
rious circumstances. The spirit of emigration 
(180) 



OF THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 181 

was much stronger in Scotland and Ireland Chap. 
than in England, because, in those countries, 
it was formerly, as it still is in Ireland, more 
difficult to obtain a livelihood than in England, 
and the great bulk of Irishmen and Scots 
were not members of the Church. Besides, 
even in England itself, the Dissenters fur- 
nished much more than their due proportion 
of emigrants, for two reasons ; firstly, the 
Dissenters were to be found, chiefly, in the 
commercial and mechanical classes of society, 
who were more likely to emigrate than those 
connected with agriculture ; secondly, the 
very fact of being a Dissenter was not un- 
frequently one of the inducements to emi- 
grate. Another cause was, that a large 
portion of the settlers came from countries 
other than Great Britain and Ireland. These 
seldom joined themselves to the Church. In- 
deed, it is believed, that, with the exception 
of some French Huguenots, in New York and 
South Carolina, the Church received no ac- 
cession of any consequence from foreigners 
before the Revolution. Even the Swedes, in 
Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey, 
although members of an Episcopal Church, 
for a long time kept up a separate organi- 
zation. Another cause was, that in thinly 
settled places, where there were not Church- 
men enough to establish a parish or congre- 
gation, they united with their neighbours, 
and so they and their posterity were lost to 
the Church. Another cause was that the 
Church had no means, within the country, 
16 



182 ORIGIN AND EARLY HISTORY 

Part f keeping up a succession of ministers ; as 
/ every other religious society, except the Ro- 
manists had. This must have occasioned the 
loss of many members, by increasing the dif- 
ficulties of forming congregations. 

(d. iii. You speak of Churchmen uniting 
with their neighbours to form congregations, 
as one cause of the small number of Church- 
men; would it not sometimes happen that 
the Church gained by Dissenters uniting with 
Church congregations ? 

Qt. In Maryland and Virginia it did; be- 
cause there the Church was established, and 
Churchmen were the majority. Elsewhere, 
it most generally fell out, that when a con- 
gregation was to be formed of mixed mate- 
rials, the various sects of Dissenters, taken 
together, outnumbered the Churchmen, and 
as each sect had stronger prejudices against 
the Church than against the others, the 
Churchmen were unable to resist their com- 
bination. Besides, it would most generally 
happen, that most or all of the Churchmen 
were very ill instructed, and not knowing 
much about the Church, had very little zeal 
for her. 

(JH. iv. Were there not other and peculiar 
causes operating in some parts of the country ? 

21. Yes. The New England States were 
settled by a class of persons called Puritans, 
who although they, for a time held commu- 
nion with the Church of England, really dif- 
fered very widely from her doctrines, and at 
last became the parents of most of the sects 



OF THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 183 

in England and in this country. They were Chap. 
the most narrow minded of all the parties 
which grew out of the Reformation. They 
having succeeded in obtaining power in New 
England, Churchmen in all the New England 
provinces, except Rhode Island, were excluded 
from the rights of citizenship, and even sub- 
jected to persecution. Hence it followed 
that Churchmen either did not settle in New 
England, or soon left it. 

(El. v. How then was the Church founded 
in New England ? 

Qt. By men of learning, who having dis- 
covered from books, the necessity of the 
Apostolic succession to the validity of Eccle- 
siastical ministrations, went to England, ob- 
tained orders, and returning to New England, 
preached the truth, amidst much persecution, 
and collected congregations around them. 

<£l. vi. You said that in Maryland and 
Virginia the majority of the people were once 
Churchmen, how is it that- they are not now 
such? 

%. Before the Revolution of 1776, the 
Church was established in those provinces, 
and the Clergy were supported by a tax. 
These facts and the connexion of the Church 
in England with the State rendered her ob- 
noxious to politicians and men of the world. 
Moreover, the establishment was very insuf- 
ficient for the instruction of the people ; so 
that the greater part of them were very igno- 
rant in religious matters. This evil was much 
increased by the Revolutionary war, which 



184 ORIGIN AND EARLY HISTORY 

Part cut off the supply of clergy, and even led to 
III# the departure of some of the ministers already 
in the country. In this state of things, some 
zealous teachers, among the sects, succeeded 
in alienating many of the more seriously in- 
clined portion of the people ; while a very 
large number of persons lost all sense of 
religion, and their posterity all connexion with 
any Church or sect. 

(&. vii. How was the American Church 
supplied with clergy before the Revolution ? 

21". At first by immigration, at a later 
period, in part by immigration, and in part 
by pious young men, who being " inwardly 
moved by the Holy Ghost" to take upon them 
this office and ministration and "to serve 
God for the promotion of His glory, and the 
edifying of His people," crossed the ocean, 
at great inconvenience, to obtain Holy Orders. 

(&L. viii. How were the clergy maintained ? 

21. In Maryland and Virginia, they had, 
as I have said, an endowment, by way of poll 
tax upon slaves and upon free males. In the 
provinces north of Maryland, and in those 
south of Virginia, they were supported, in 
part by the congregations, and in part, by 
the English " Society for the Propagation of 
the Gospel." There was no congregation 
north of Maryland, out of Philadelphia, 
New York, Newport, and Boston, which did 
not receive assistance from that excellent so- 
ciety. 

€1. ix. How were the clergy appointed to 
their cures ? 



OF THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 185 

21. In Maryland, by the Lord Proprietor ; Chap. 
in Virginia, by the Governor ; in congregations *■ 
assisted by the Society for the Propagation 
of the Gospel, virtually by that Society ; in 
others, nominally by the Bishop of London, 
but really by the congregations themselves. 

(Q. x. By what ecclesiastical laws were 
the clergy and people governed ? 

21. As they were a part of the Church of 
England, they must have been subject to the 
laws of the Church of England ; although 
from the circumstances of the case they could 
not be strictly or regularly enforced. 

(d. xi. Under what Episcopal authority did 
they live ? 

21. Under that of the Bishop of London. 

(El. xii. What was the nature and extent 
of that authority ? 

21. The authority of an English Bishop 
consists of four parts, three of which he has 
in common w T ith all other Bishops ; he derives 
the fourth from the connexion which subsists 
in England between the Church and the 
State. 

(El. xiii. What are the parts into which 
you say the authority of an English Bishop 
may be divided ? 

%. First, his authority as a minister of the 
Word and Sacraments ; Second, the powers 
peculiar to a consecrated bishop, of consecrat- 
ing Churches, confirming, ordaining, sus- 
pending, and degrading ministers ; Third, 
jurisdiction, as contradistinguished from mis- 
sion, that is, the right to administer the 
16* 



186 ORIGIN AND EARLY HISTORY 

P ART discipline and government of the Church; 

t Fourth, a certain authority in matters, which 
are either not at all, or not purely, eccle- 
siastical, but touch upon civil rights. Thus, 
English Bishops have certain powers in con- 
nexion with testamentary causes, with matri- 
monial causes, with rights of property in 
tithes, or in advowsons, the right, that is, of 
presenting or nominating, clergymen to bene- 
fices, or endowed cures. 

(El. xiv. Did the Bishop of London exer- 
cise all these powers in the colonies ? 

Qt. No ; the fourth class of powers was not 
considered as existing at all in the colonies. 
The exercise of the first class was physically 
impossible, on account of the distance ; this 
is probably one reason why some persons now 
deny its existence. The second class he could 

. only exercise in the matter of ordinations ; 

the third he could exercise very imperfectly. 

(El. xv. In what mode did the Bishops of 

London chiefly exercise their jurisdiction in 

the colonies? 

Qt. Chiefly by licensing clergymen to of- 
ficiate. These licenses were in theory revo- 
cable, but in practice were rarely, if ever, 
revoked. In Maryland and Virginia they 
authorized the licensed clergymen to officiate 
in any part of the province, but in Maryland 
they were not much regarded, and were 
rather obnoxious to the government; which 
claimed the right of appointing to benefices 
independently of all Episcopal authority. 
Elsewhere, the licensed clergyman was autho- 



OF THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 187 

rized to officiate in a particular congregation. 
But there was one congregation, St. Paul's, 
Philadelphia, which never had a minister who 
officiated under an Episcopal license. The 
Bishops of London also sometimes appointed 
commissaries to represent them in particular 
provinces ; but their authority was neither 
very extensive nor very actively employed. 

<Et. xvi. On what basis did the authority of 
the Bishop of London rest ? 

2i. It has been believed to have rested on 
some grant from the Crown of Great Britain ; 
but it is by no means certain that such a do- 
cument existed, although some Bishops of 
London had something of the sort, which was 
in force for their lives. Its best foundation 
was in the necessity for Episcopal authority. 
A necessity, which the Bishops of London, 
were willing to supply, as far as circumstances 
permitted, by the exercise of that general 
authority, which belonged to them as Bishops 
of the Church of Christ, and which they were 
at liberty to use whenever required by the 
demands of necessity or charity. To this au- 
thority the people willingly submitted. 

©. xvii. What effect was produced on the 
Ecclesiastical authority of the Bishop of Lon- 
don, by the American Revolution ? 

2i. It was generally supposed to have put 
an end to it. No doubt it did so, so far as 
it was derived from the Crown of Great Bri- 
tain, or was connected with the relations be- 
tween the Church of England and the State. 
Moreover, it rendered the existence of any 




188 ORIGIN AND EARLY HISTORY 

Part such authority in the highest degree inexpe- 
*** dient, and practically impossible, and so paved 
the way for a dissolution of the old connexion 
by mutual consent. 

(&. xviii. In what condition were the Ame- 
rican Churches placed by that dissolution ? 

3L The Churchmen in each of the new 
states formed a small national Church ; but 
these Churches were very imperfect, and with- 
out any organization. 

(fll. xix. What do you mean by a national 
Church? 

Qi. I mean that portion of the visible 
Church of Christ, which is to be found within 
any particular nation ; and which, like the 
Catholic Church, of which it is a part, "is 
a congregation of faithful men, in the which 
the pure Word of God is preached, and the 
Sacraments duly administered, according to 
Christ's ordinance in all those things that of 
necessity are requisite to the same." 

(fil. xx. How were the American Churches 
national ? 

01. Because before the adoption of the pre- 
sent Constitution of the United States, each 
of the States was, in reality, a little indepen- 
dent nation. 

(fit. xxi. How were these Churches imper- 
fect? 

Qt. Because they had within themselves no 
Episcopate. 

fiH. xxii. Is the Episcopate necessary to the 
perfection of a Church ? 

5t. In one sense the Episcopate is neces- 



OF THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 189 

sary to the perfection, and in another to the Chap. 
very being of a Church ? *• 

(St. xxiii. How is it necessary to the being Y ' 
of a Church ? 

21. Because the Sacraments cannot be duly 
ministered according* to Christ's ordinance, 
nor, in fact, the pure Word of God preached, 
without a ministry deriving its authority from 
our Blessed Lord. "How,' r asks the Apos- Rom - x - 15 - 
tie, "shall they preach except they be sent." 
The Episcopate is the channel through which 
alone such a ministry can be derived and con- 
tinued. 

(d. xxiv. How then can a Church exist 
even in an imperfect state without an Epis- 
copate ? 

21. A Church may have within it, regu- 
larly ordained ministers of the Word and 
Sacraments, who may be able to perform the 
functions of their office. So long as this 
continues, it may be a Church. Such is the 
case of every diocese during every vacancy 
of its bishopric. But such a Church is im- 
perfect ; because it has not within itself the 
power of continuing itself, but on the death, 
or departure of all its existing ministers must 
become extinct, as a Church, unless other # 
ministers should come into it from some other 
Church. 

(Si. xxv. Cannot a Church consist of lay- 
men only ? 

21. No ; because the Gospel cannot be 
preached by them ; for, although a layman 
might address to his brethren a discourse 




190 ORIGIN AND EARLY HISTORY 

upon religious subjects, and they might derive 
f instruction from such address, it would not 
be preaching ; for the layman would not be 
an ambassador from Christ acting by his au- 
thority, and cannot preach because he has not 
been sent. Nor can the Sacraments in such 
Artxix. a body "be duly ministered according to 
Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of 
necessity are requisite to the same;' , for by 
the uniform doctrine of the Universal Church, 
at least one of the Sacraments cannot be ad- 
ministered without a priest. 

<&. xxvi. But does not Tertullian say that 
whenever there are three Christians and they 
of the laity, there is a Church ? 

21. Undoubtedly wherever two or three 
Christians, although of the laity, are gathered 
together, there is a Church, in that sense of 
the word in which it means a Christian assem- 
bly ; w T hich is entitled to the benefit of the 
Matt. xvm. promise that where two or three are gathered 
together in the name of our Blessed Lord, 
there is He in the midst of them, so that 
their prayers have a special promise of being 
heard. But such a meeting is only an assem- 
bly, which is dissolved when its members sepa- 
rate, not a permanent, continuous Church. 
Moreover, it is not a Church, in the sense in 
which we are using that word ; because it 
does not contain within itself the power of 
preaching or of administering the Sacraments 
according to Christ's ordinance. 

(&. xxvii. What do you mean by saying 
that these national Churches were without 
any organization ? 



OF THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 191 

21. They had no public officers whose au- Chap. 
thority extended beyond a single congrega- 
tion, and no external bond of union extend- 
ing throughout all the congregations within 
the bounds of each Church. 

(El. xxviii. Were they also without Eccle- 
siastical law ? 

21. No. It is not easy to understand that 
a merely political revolution could have 
changed the Ecclesiastical law. So far as the 
supposed Ecclesiastical law was connected 
with the relations of the Church to the British 
Crown, or State, it was of course abrogated 
by the American Revolution. But there is 
no reason why the ordinary ecclesiastical laws 
should have been changed by a political revo- 
lution, more than the laws which regulate 
civil rights or civil contracts. A revolution 
which puts an end to one government, and 
substitutes another, dissolves all political laws, 
and may dissolve all politico-ecclesiastical 
laws; but it leaves untouched the ordinary 
laws of civil society. This is more especially 
clear, when, as in the case before us, the new 
civil government refuses all connexion with 
ecclesiastical affairs. Neither could the mere 
dissolution, by mutual consent, of the rela- 
tions between the Bishop of London and the 
American Churchmen, change the law under 
which the latter lived. They must then have 
remained under the authority of the purely 
ecclesiastical laws of the Church of England, 
of which they had been part, until they 
were changed by competent authority. But 



192 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION 

Part although they had laws, they were without 
any efficient means of enforcing them. 



CHAPTER II. 

ON' THE HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE 
AMERICAN CHURCH. 

GH. i. What was requisite to give to these 
little national Churches, the benefit of organ- 
ized government ? 

3L It was requisite that there should be 
made, an organic law distributing the powers 
of government. This presented a great dif- 
ficulty ; for there was no recognised law- 
making power. The same difficulty occurs, 
whenever the idea of originating a govern- 
ment presents itself. 

CD. ii. How are governments originated ? 

Ql. There are two theories of the origin 
of government. According to the fashionable 
theory, all government proceeds from the peo- 
ple, and originates in what is called the social 
compact. This supposes, that men live na- 
turally in a state of anarchy and without go- 
vernment, and that, becoming weary of this 
state of things, they at length meet, and agree 
upon a form of government. But this is well 
known to be a mere theory, or more accu- 
rately speaking, a mere fiction. No such 




OF THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 193 

anarchy ever existed, no such meeting, or 
compact, ever took place. The true theory 
of government is, that it is a Divine institu- v 
tion, that it has always existed, and that 
God, by His Divine Providence, directs how 
its powers shall be distributed, and by whom, 
and under what restrictions, they shall be pos- 
sessed. This is exactly according to the 
words of St. Paul, " Let every soul be sub- 
ject to the higher powers, for there is no Rom. xm. 1. 
power but of God." 

(Q. iii. According to this theory, upon a 
dissolution, or change of government, how 
is the new government to originate ? 

Qt. All history shows that men are never 
reduced to a literal state of anarchy. There 
always remains, somewhere, some fragment 
of the old authority, at least until some new 
authority is developed. The preservation of 
the old, and the development of the new, are 
both under the direction of Divine Providence, 
which thus provides, what may be called a 
starting point for the new government. Those, 
who thus, in the course of Divine Providence, 
possess power, proceed to enact such organic 
laws as are necessary. Sometimes they de- 
clare them to be laws by virtue of the power 
which they themselves possess ; at other times 
they consult the community, or some consi- 
derable portion of it ; but they never regard 
the community as resolved into its elements. 
On the contrary, they always regard it as a 
formed body, which is bound by the acts of 
those, who assume the power of acting for it, 
17 



194 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION 

Part be tney many or few. It thus sometimes 
—■■• happens, that the organic law is the avowed 
Y '~ work of some few powerful men ; it is then 
considered as having been granted from 
above. It sometimes happens that it has re- 
ceived the assent of a large number of per- 
sons, who, perhaps, may have been previously 
called, by those on whom the course of Pro- 
vidence had conferred power, to choose per- 
sons, who might consult on the framing of the 
organic law. When this course is pursued, 
the government is spoken of as developed 
from below, or from the people. This was 
the course adopted in organizing the politi- 
cal government in this country ; but neither 
here, nor any where else, has it ever hap- 
pened, that the whole people have been actu- 
ally consulted, or that they have all actually 
approved the proposed organization, except 
as they preferred it to none. 

(fit. iv. Are there not two elements in 
every government ? 

%. Yes ; there are two elements in every 
government, a Divine and a human. In civil 
governments the Divine element is nothing 
more than the Divine will that a government 
should exist, which must be under some form 
and be administered by some persons. That 
form and those persons having been desig- 
nated, in the course of Providence, the Divine 
Will requires submission to them, as is re- 
vealed in several texts of Holy Scripture. 
?Pct h ia ia- ^ ne rest belongs to the human element, but 
w- derives stability from *the Christian doctrine 



OF THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 195 

of submission as laid down in the texts which 
we have quoted in the margin, and others. 

CI. v. How does Ecclesiastical government 
differ from civil ? 

21. It differs in this ; that God has spe- 
cially appointed a class of governors in the 
Church, who must be admitted to their office 
by those who possessed it before them, in a 
certain manner, and has made those governors 
necessary to the preservation of the Church, 
because necessary to the perpetuation of the 
ministry. Those governors are called Bishops. 
In consequence of their existence, the human 
element in Ecclesiastical government is very 
much limited ; since there must, in every Ec- 
clesiastical organization, be a place found for 
the Bishops, and that a very important one. 

(El. vi. Had this principle any effect on 
the development of the American Church ? 

21. It had a most important one. In fact, 
in consequence of this principle, while the 
organization of the Church was in the- act of 
being developed from below, it was met by 
another portion of the same organization, 
plainly and undeniably granted from above, 
or, at least, from without, and that upon the 
ground of peculiar powers, derived from the 
highest authority of all. 

QJ. vii. You said, that on a change of go- 
vernment, there were always some fragments 
of the ancient authority remaining, until some 
portion of the new government was developed, 
was this the case in the American Church ? 

21. Yes ; there remained a body of pres- 




xxvii. 



196 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION 

Part byters, to whom, according to the usages of 
the primitive Church, belonged, in the va- 
cancy of the Episcopate, so much Church 
authority as could be exercised without Epis- 
copal powers. There remained also the pa- 
rishes or congregations, organized bodies of 
laymen, in some cases with presbyters at 
their heads. In fact, these parishes or con- 
gregations, and not individuals, were regarded 
as the units out of which the Church was or- 
ganized, 
chap. L ans. ^ viii# y u said that there was no ex- 
ternal bond of union among Churchmen ; was 
there not an internal bond of union ? 

Ql. Yes; there were several. They had 
one faith and one Baptism, whereby they had 
all been baptized into one Body, and made 
to drink into one Spirit ; they were also one 
loaf, because they all partook of that one 
bread. Moreover, they were bound together, 
in a special manner, by two circumstances. 
Of these, one was a strong attachment to the 
forms of worship in the English Prayer Book, 
the other a belief in the doctrine of the 
Apostolic succession. These were common 
to nearly all Churchmen, one or other of them 
to all ; for those who were not held to the 
Church by one or both of these ties, had all 
deserted her in her difficulties. Those who 
remained were, in many cases, ignorant of 
Church principles, in most indifferent to them, 
in some hostile, even to the extent, in the 
case of persons in high places, of adopting 
formal heresy. But these two ideas, humanly 



OF THfi AMERICAN CHURCH. 197 

speaking, kept the Church together, and ani- Chap. 
mated men in the pursuit of an organized go- **• 
vernment. 

(St. ix. What steps were taken in procuring 
an organization ? 

2i. They were different in different parts 
of the country, as to the details, but they all 
proceeded upon the same general principles, 
and, with one or two striking exceptions, pur- 
sued the same general course. 

(£1. x. What was that general course ? 

21. In general, a few Clergymen, finding 
themselves brought together for some other 
purpose, conferred upon the state of the 
Church, and agreed to call a meeting of their 
brethren. These meetings, which were gen- 
erally attended by all, or nearly all, the 
clergy of the several States, proceeded to 
invite a meeting of laymen, elected by the 
several parishes, to confer with them. The 
meetings were called Conventions, by a name, 
then and now given, in the United States, to 
assemblages of all sorts of persons, represent- 
ing, or claiming to represent, for any purpose 
whatever, any larger number of persons. 
These Conventions formed organic laws for 
the Churches of their respective States ; that 
is, for the little national Churches of which we 
have spoken, which, in time, assumed the name 
of dioceses. Thus, the government of the 
Churches was, in fact, developed from what 
remained of the old government. Yet, in one 
sense, it was developed from below ; for the 
diocesan government, which was the higher 
17* 



198 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION 

Pabt authority, was developed from the parochial, 
t which was the lower. Moreover, one ele- 
ment of Church power, that of the laity, was 
brought forward into a more prominent po- 
sition, and in a more distinct form, than it 
had ever possessed before. 

(2H. xi. What were the exceptions of which 
you spoke ? 

21. They were chiefly two, in Pennsylvania 
and Connecticut. 

<E1. xii. "What was done in Pennsylvania ? 

21. In Pennsylvania, the process formally 
commenced, by the action of the vestry of 
the principal parish in the State, which was, 
however, the consequence of a conference 
among the Clergy of Philadelphia ; who, al- 
though only three in number, were a large 
proportion, perhaps, a majority, of those in 
the State. The action of the vestry produced 
the appointment of committees from the only 
two vestries in the city, to confer with the 
Clergy. The result of the conference was the 
calling of a Convention. 

(fit. xiii. What was done in Connecticut ? 

21. In Connecticut, where Churchmen were 
deeply imbued with the ideas of the Primitive 
Church, the Clergy doubted the power of 
the Church to enact laws, until she was pro- 
vided with a Bishop; the officer to w^hom, 
by Divine appointment, a large share of 
Church authority belonged. They, therefore, 
at a meeting of the greater part of them, 
without the presence of any laity, proceeded 
to elect Dr. Samuel Seabury, a presbyter 



OF THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 199 

distinguished for learning, zeal, and piety, as 
their Bishop, and sent him to Europe, to 
obtain consecration. This transaction was 
among the very first steps taken, towards the 
reorganization of the Church. It took place 
in April 1783, and the certificate of Dr. Sea- 
bury's election, is dated on the twenty-first 
of that month. He was consecrated by 
Bishops of the non-established, but Apostolic 
Church of Scotland, which was then under 
persecution, on the 14th day of November, 
1784. As the law of Scotland then stood, 
the performance of the services of the Episco- 
pal Church was penal, if there were more 
than five persons present; so that if there 
were two persons present at the consecration 
of Dr. Seabury, besides himself and the three 
consecrators, there was a violation of the law 
of the land. But such a law, contradicting 
the plain precepts of the Gospel, could only 
raise the question, " whether we ought to 
obey God rather than man ?" After Bishop 
Seabury's return, a Convention was held. 
The Church in Connecticut ultimately as- 
sumed the same form, as in other dioceses, 
although some years elapsed before the laity 
were admitted to a representation in the 
Convention. 

QH. xiv. What were the general principles 
of government which were adopted ? 

( A. That the legislative authority should be 
vested in a Convention of clergy and laity, 
who should sit and debate as one house, but 
should have a check upon one another, by 




200 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION 

Part means of a power vested in a very few mem- 
• j bers ? to call for a vote by orders, in which 
case nothing can be done, except by a majo- 
rity of both orders. The executive power, in 
the absence of a Bishop, to be vested in a 
Standing Committee, elected by the Conven- 
tion, composed of Clergymen and laymen, 
but without the check of acting by orders. 
This does not extend to Connecticut or 
Maryland, in which dioceses, none but Cler- 
gymen are admitted upon the Standing Com- 
mittees. That there should be a Bishop who 
should preside in Convention and have the 
powers properly belonging to his office. He 
must be elected by the diocesan Convention, 
and must be consecrated before he is consi- 
dered as differing from other presbyters. 

(£i. xv. Did this organization supply the 
wants of the Churches ? 

21. No. The Churches were still imper- 
fect, as being without Bishops. Nor did 
it supply the full wants of Churchmen for 
two reasons. The attachment of American 
Churchmen to the Church was founded on 
the formularies in the Prayer Book and on 
the doctrine of Apostolical succession. The 
first was not, in its then state, adapted to the 
new situation of the Churches. Very little 
confidence would have been felt in revisions 
undertaken by the Churches in the several 
States independently of each other : besides, 
there was no State in which there were 
Churchmen enough to make it worth while 
to print a book designed for use in it only. 



OF THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 201 

Moreover, there was undoubtedly some feel- 
ing, that the Prayer Book ought not to be 
revised, without the presence and concurrence 
of Bishops. 

As to the other ground of attachment to 
the Church. Although after a time there 
was a Bishop in the country, there was no 
security for the continuance of the office be- 
yond his life. Churchmen, and none more 
than the Bishop himself, were impressed with 
the importance of the ancient rule, which 
required the presence of three Bishops at the 
consecration of a new one. There were be- 
sides some unfounded prejudices against the 
consecration of Bishop Seabury, as coming 
from the Bishops of a Church not then for- 
mally recognised by the Church of England, 
because it was discountenanced by the British 
government. It was, therefore, thought ne- 
cessary, or at least highly desirable, to obtain 
the Episcopate through the English Church, 
This it was supposed, could only be done by 
a united effort. Moreover, even supposing 
that the Episcopate were obtained, it would 
not, as it was thought, have been practicable 
for each State to have, within itself, such a 
number of Bishops as would suffice to perpe- 
tuate the succession. There must, therefore, 
be provided some system of general rules, 
touching that matter, according to which the 
Bishops should consecrate other Bishops, in 
whatever part of the union they might be re- 
quired. . Such rules could only be made, by 
a common authority, extending over several 




202 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION 

Part States. For all these reasons, it was held 
In - desirable, that there should be originated, a 
union of the several Churches, under one 
legislative body. 

<Et. xvi. What steps were taken in conse- 
quence of these opinions ? 

.21. A general Convention was developed 
from the diocesan Convention, very much as 
they had themselves been developed from the 
parishes. The idea was started very early. 
It was distinctly alluded to by those who 
called the first Pennsylvania Convention, 
March 29th, 1784. But nothing was done 
until May, 1784, when a few clergymen from 
New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, 
being together about a matter of mutual 
concern at New Brunswick, in New Jersey, 
invited a few zealous laymen, then in the 
same place about other business, to confer 
with them. They determined on obtaining a 
larger meeting, and from more States, at 
New York, in October, of the same year. 
At this meeting there appeared persons from 
Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New 
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, 
and Virginia. It was still, however, merely 
a voluntary meeting, not an authorized Con- 
vention of delegates. The persons present 
agreed upon certain general principles of 
Ecclesiastical Union, and called a Convention 
to meet at Philadelphia, on the " Tuesday 
before the Feast of St. Michael," 1785. 

(St. xvii. What *were the principles agreed 
upon? 



OF THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 203 

2i. " 1st. That there shall be a general 
Convention of the Episcopal Church in the 
United States of America. 

" 2d. That the Episcopal Church in each 
State, send deputies to the Convention, con- 
sisting of clergy and laity. 

" 3d. That associated congregations, in 
two or more States may send deputies jointly. 

" 4th. That the said Church shall maintain 
the doctrines of the Gospel, as now held by 
the Church of England, and shall adhere to 
the Liturgy of the said Church, as far as 
shall be consistent with the American Revo- 
lution, and the Constitutions of the respective 
States. 

" 5th. That in every State where there 
shall be a Bishop duly consecrated and set- 
tled, he shall be considered as a member of 
the Convention ex officio. 

" 6th. That the clergy and laity, assembled 
in Convention, shall deliberate in one body, 
but shall vote separately: and the concur- 
rence of both shall be necessary to give vali- 
dity to every measure. 

" 7th. That the first meeting of the Con- 
vention shall be at Philadelphia, the Tuesday 
before the Feast of St. Michael next, to 
which it is hoped, and earnestly desired that 
the Episcopal Churches in the several States 
will send their clerical and lay deputies, duly 
instructed and authorized to proceed on the 
necessary business herein proposed for their 
deliberation." 

©. xviii. Did a Convention meet according 
to this call ? 




204 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION 

Part QV. Authorized delegates from seven 

TTT 

** A " - Churches met. They were New York, New 
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, 
Virginia, and South Carolina. The Churches 
in the Eastern States, where Church princi- 
ples were better understood, and more valued, 
than in the Middle and Southern States, held 
back, from a fear of being committed to some 
irregularity. In North Carolina and Georgia, 
there were at that time no Church organiza- 
tions ; nor were there any for some years 
afterwards. 

(EL xix. What was the proper business of 
that Convention ? 

Qi. It was threefold ; to devise means for 
procuring the Episcopate, to revise the Prayer 
Book, and to organize a permanent union, 
among the American Churches. Of these 
things the first was the most pressing ; both 
as being in itself the most important, and as 
being in truth a necessary preliminary to the 
right performance of the other two. In fact, 
the Providence of God so overruled the wills 
of men, that nothing final or permanent, was 
done in the other affairs, until after the obtain- 
ing of the Episcopate. 

(EL xx. What did the Convention do in the 
matter of the Episcopate ? 

21. It sent an address to the Archbishops 
of Canterbury and York, and the Bishops 
of the Church of England, requesting them 
to consecrate Bishops for such of the Churches 
in the United States as might elect them, and 
recommended to the diocesan Conventions to 



OF THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 205 

make such elections. The address was the 
commencement of a correspondence, which 
led, after a delay of a few years, to the con- 
secration of Bishops at different times, for 
New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. 

(&. xxi. What was done in the matter of 
the Prayer Book ? 

21. Some alterations were made in the 
prayers for rulers, to accommodate them to 
the circumstances of the country, which were 
directed to be at once adopted; a direction 
which was generally acquiesced in. Other, 
and very extensive, alterations were proposed. 
An edition of the Prayer Book was directed 
to be published with the alterations made 
and proposed. This edition is known as the 
Proposed Book, its final adoption depended 
on its ratification by the diocesan or State 
Conventions ; a sanction which it never re- 
ceived. 

(El. xxii. What was done in the matter of 
permanent Union? 

21. A Constitution was drawn up providing 
for triennial General Conventions, of which 
the first was to be held in 1786. But the 
validity of this Constitution depended upon 
its ratification by the Convention of 1786. 
That body did not ratify it, but amended it, 
and both the original Constitution and the 
amendment stood over for ratification in 
1789. The Convention of that year threw 
it aside altogether, and adopted the present 
Constitution. 

QH. xxiii. Was any thing done at the Con- 
18 




206 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION 

Part vention of 1786 in the matter of the Episco- 
IL /P ate? 

21. A letter was received from the English 
Archbishops and Bishops intimating their 
willingness to consecrate Bishops for the 
American Churches ; provided that the laws 
of England should be so altered, as to permit 
them so to do ; an alteration which they 
hoped to obtain ; and provided, that they 
were satisfied of the soundness in the faith 
of the American Churches ; of which they had 
some doubts. A reply was returned to this 
letter, giving assurances of the general 
agreement of the American Churches in the 
doctrine of the Church of England. Copies 
of the Proposed Book, and of the proposed 
Constitution, were transmitted to the Prelates. 
A Committee was appointed to continue the 
correspondence, with the English Bishops, 
with power to call the Convention together 
again if necessary. 

(&. xxiv. Was any thing done under this 
authority ? 

21. Yes ; a meeting was held at Wilming- 
ton, Delaware, in October, 1786. A second 
letter from the Archbishops and Bishops, 
was there produced, in which they announced, 
that they had obtained the passage of an act 
of Parliament, permitting them to consecrate 
Bishops for foreign countries, without re- 
quiring the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, 
pointing out some objections to the Proposed 
Book, and suggesting the forms of the testi- 
monials to be signed by the members of the 



OF THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 207 

State and General Conventions, in favour of 
the persons elected to the Episcopate. 

(&. xxv. What did the Convention do ? 

2i. It restored to its place in the Apos- 
tles' Creed, the article of the Descent into 
Hell, with an alternative clause, nearly as it 
now stands in the Prayer Book; it placed 
the Nicene Creed in the Prayer Book, as it 
now stands, it had previously been omitted 
altogether ; it adopted the suggestions as to 
the testimonials. Copies of these testimonials 
were signed by the members in favour of Dr. 
William White, Bishop elect for Pennsylva- 
nia, and Dr. Samuel Provost, Bishop elect 
for New York. 

<&. xxvi. Were these Prelates consecrated ? 

21. They were consecrated on the fourth 
of February, 1787, at Lambeth Chapel, by 
the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Arch- 
bishop of York presenting, and the Bishops 
of Bath and Wells and Peterborough assist- 

in s- 

(£L. xxvii. Was there any other important 
step taken at the Convention of 1786 ? 

21. A Resolution was adopted in these 
words, " Resolved, that it be recommended to 
the Conventions of this Church in the several 
States represented in this Convention, that 
they authorize and empower their deputies to 
the next General Convention, after we shall 
have obtained a Bishop or Bishops in our 
Church, to confirm and ratify a general Con- 
stitution, respecting both the doctrine and 
discipline of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
in the United States of America." 




208 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION 

Part (&. xxviii. In what did the importance of 
In * this resolution consist ? 

21. In recognising the principle, that the 
assent of Bishops was necessary to Ecclesi- 
astical action, and consequently the provi- 
sional and temporary character of all that had 
been done. 

(St. xxix. Was any thing done under the 
resolution ? 

21. The members of the Convention of 1789 
were furnished with such powers. Bishop 
White attended that Convention ; which was 
thus assembled, not only as the second tri- 
ennial Convention, called according to the 
proposed but unratified Constitution of 1785, 
but, also, as that which is sometimes called a 
constituent assembly ; a meeting, that is, of 
delegates authorized to originate a govern- 
ment. 

(El. xxx. What was done under these 
powers ? 

21. The Convention formed a Constitution ; 
but, before it had completed that work, its 
attention was called to other matters not less 
important. 

(El. xxxi. What were they ? 

21. An application had been made by 
sundry clergymen of Massachusetts and New 
Hampshire, to the three American Bishops, 
to consecrate the Reverend Edward Bass, a 
Bishop for those two States. Bishop White 
laid a copy of this document before the Con- 
vention, together with some correspondence 
with Bishop Seabury and other persons. 



OF THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 209 

This led to a unanimous resolution, recog- Chap. 
nising the validity of Bishop Seabury's con- IJ * 
secration. Subsequently resolutions were 
passed, requesting the three Bishops to unite 
in the consecration of Mr. Bass. This was 
not done; because Bishops White and Pro- 
vost thought themselves bound, by promise 
to the English Bishops, not to perform any 
consecrations until there were three Bishops 
of English consecration in America. Mr. 
Bass was never consecrated under that elec- 
tion. The movement, however, opened a way 
for a union between the Eastern Churches, 
on the one hand, and those of the Middle and 
Southern States, on the other. The Conven- 
tion adjourned to meet on the 29th Septem- 
ber in the same year, and invited Bishop 
Seabury, and the Eastern and other Churches 
to attend, " for the good purposes of union 
and general government." 

(St. xxxii. Did the Bishop of Connecticut 
reply to this request ? 

21. He came to the Convention at the 
appointed time, accompanied by clerical de- 
puties from Connecticut and Massachusetts, 
the last named of which also represented 
New Hampshire. A negotiation was com- 
menced between these gentlemen, and a 
Committee of the Convention, in consequence 
of which the newly adopted Constitution 
was declared to be still open to amendment. 
The Eastern Churches objected, that, by its 
provisions, the House of Bishops was not 
authorized to originate business, and had 
18* 



210 HISTORY OP THE ORGANIZATION 

Part ori \j a qualified negative, on the action of 
( the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies. A 
compromise was, however, agreed upon ; by 
this, the House of Bishops was allowed the 
right of originating business, and a practical, 
if not theoretical, veto ; since they could 
negative any measure, unless it was repassed 
by the House of Deputies, by the votes of 
four-fifths of the members, after having heard 
the reasons of the Bishops. This having 
been done, the Bishop of Connecticut and 
the deputies of the Eastern Churches, sub- 
scribed the Constitution ; and the Convention 
resolved, that "there is now in this Conven- 
tion a separate House of Bishops." The 
Bishops present then formed a separate 
house. Thus, the several little national 
Churches, of which I have spoken, were at 
last organized into one National American 
Church. This took place in the same year 
in which the Constitution of the United 
States, by which the States were formed into 
a real nation, went into operation. But, 
although the American Church was thus 
organized, it can scarcely be said to have 
been organized upon proper principles until 
1808, when a full negative was given to the 
House of Bishops. 

(JH. xxxiii. Did thi3 organized Church 
extend to every part of the United States ? 

21. No, the Church in Rhode Island did 
not become a party to the Constitution until 
1792. That in North Carolina and Georgia, 
not for many years afterwards. Indeed, it 



OF THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 211 

may be doubted whether the Church existed Chap. 
in Georgia ; neither there, nor in North Caro- 
lina, was there any diocesan organization. 

(JH. xxxiv. What was done after the orga- 
nization ? 

21. The two houses laying aside the cha- 
racter of a constituent assembly, proceeded 
to revise and adopt the Prayer Book under 
the tenth article of the newly adopted Con- 
stitution. They settled the Book very nearly 
as it now is ; only the Thirty-nine Articles, 
the Offices for the Consecrating and Ordain- 
ing Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, and those 
for the Consecration of churches and Institu- 
tion of ministers, have been since added. 



CHAPTER III. 



OF THE ORDERS, MISSION, AND JURISDICTION 
OF AMERICAN BISHOPS. 

(St. i. You said that Mr. Bass was not 
consecrated, because the Bishops who had 
been consecrated in England, held themselves 
bound by promise to the English Bishops, not 
to perform any consecration until there were 
three Bishops of English consecration in the 
United States. How was that difficulty got 
over ? 

21. Dr. James Madison was consecrated 



212 ORDERS, MISSION, AND JURISDICTION 

Part Bishop of Virginia, at Lambeth, on the 19th 
day of September, 1790, by Archbishop 
''Moore of Canterbury ; Bishop Porteous of 
London, and Bishop Thomas of Rochester, 
being present and assisting. 

CfH. il. What steps were afterwards taken 
to preserve the succession of Bishops ? 

21. On the 17th day of September, 1792, 
Dr. Thomas John Claggett was consecrated 
Bishop of Maryland, by Bishops Provost, 
Seabury, White, and Madison. Bishop Clag- 
gett afterwards joined in several consecra- 
ions ; so that every Bishop, now in the Ame- 
rican Church, can trace his Ecclesiastical 
descent, through him, from both the English 
and Scotch lines. 

(El. iii. Are Orders derived from those 
lines indisputable? 

Qi. Yes: and their validity may be thus 
proved. The orders of the English Bishops 
in the reign of Henry VIII. , including Arch- 
bishop Cranmer, have never been denied. 
In the beginning of the reign of Queen Eliza- 
beth, Archbishop Parker of Canterbury, was 
consecrated for that see, by four Bishops, 
three of whom had been consecrated by 
Archbishop Cranmer, and the fourth by 
Bishop Stokesly, of London, who was a 
Bishop before Archbishop Cranmer. After 
his consecration, Archbishop Parker, assisted 
by the same Bishops, consecrated many other 
Bishops, from whom all the Bishops in Eng- 
land, Scotland, the United States, and the 
British colonies, trace their Ecclesiastical 
descent. 



OP AMERICAN BISHOPS. 213 

(&. iv. Has not the fact of Archbishop Chap. 
Parker's consecration been denied ? 

21. It has ; but the official record of it now 
remains in the Registry of the diocese of 
Canterbury. It has been recently examined 
and found free from all marks of suspicion. 
The Romanists alleged that it was forged : 
this has led to such a thorough examination 
of the whole subject, that it may now be said, 
that there is probably no document in the 
whole world whose authenticity has been so 
clearly proved, nor any fact in history better 
established than Archbishop Parker's conse- 
cration. 

6ft. v. What were the names of Parker's 
consecrators ? 

21. William Barlow, who had been Bishop 
of St. David's and of Bath and Wells, and 
was then Bishop elect of Chichester ; John 
Scory, who had been Bishop of Chichester, 
and was then Bishop elect of Hereford ; Miles 
Coverdale, who had been Bishop of Exeter ; 
and John Hodgeskin, who then was, and had 
long been, Suffragan Bishop of Bedford. 

Gft. vi. Is there any doubt of the conse- 
cration of any of those Bishops ? 

2i. The records of the consecrations of 
three of them remain. Bishop Hodgeskin 
was consecrated on the 9th of December, 
1537, by Bishops Stokesly of London, Whar- 
ton of St. Asaph, and Hilsey of Rochester. 
Bishops Scory and Coverdale were conse- 
crated together on the 30th of August, 1551, 
by Archbishop Cranmer, Bishop Ridley of 



214 ORDERS, MISSION, AND JURISDICTION 

Part London, and Bishop Hodgeskin. The record 
of Bishop Barlow's consecration is lost ; but 
he was always regarded as a Bishop in his 
life time, and his consecration was never de- 
nied, until many years after his death : when 
the Romanists found it convenient to use the 
want of the record as a weapon with which 
to assail the validity of Parker's consecration. 

(El. vii. Would the fact, that Barlow had 
not been consecrated, have affected the vali- 
dity of Parker's consecration, seeing that 
there were three other Bishops ? 

21. It would not ; but the Romanists set 
up a pretence, that, inasmuch as Barlow was, 
what they call, the consecrator, it was through 
him only that Parker could derive orders. 

Cfil. viii. Is that so ? 

21. No : the ancient canons, which require 
three Bishops to participate in a consecration, 
are intended to secure the transmission of 
orders, in case of any accidental deficiency 
in one of the number ; otherwise one Bishop 
might transmit the succession. The Roman- 
ists virtually allow this-; for consecrations by 
one Bishop are common among them, both in 
England and Ireland. Moreover, it is said 
in the Corpus Juris Canonica, a work of the 
very highest authority among them, that all 
the Bishops who lay hands on an elect, con- 
secrate him jointly, as several persons carry 
a beam jointly, and no one more than 
another. 

(El. ix. What do you infer from this? 

21. That a newly consecrated Bishop re- 



OF AMERICAN BISHOPS. 215 

ceives his orders from each and every of his Chap. 

consecrators ; and that, consequently, the^ -' 

consecration of Barlow, is not necessary to 
the validity of Anglican orders. In fact, it 
may be shown that that of Parker is not 
necessary to their validity. 

(St. x. How can that be done ? 

21. In several modes. The Irish Church 
does not derive its orders from the Church 
of England. The Romish Bishops, whom 
Queen Elizabeth found in possession of the 
Irish sees, and of whose valid consecration 
nobody has ever made any doubt, were not, 
with two exceptions, deprived of their sees. 
On the contrary, they conformed to the Re- 
formation, and a line of Bishops, descending 
in regular succession from them, remains in 
Ireland to this day. Archbishop Hampton, 
of Armagh, one of this line of Bishops, joined 
in July 7th, 1616, in the consecration of 
Bishop Morton of Coventry; who, on July 
12, 1618, was one of the consecrators of 
Bishop Carleton of Llandaff, afterwards of 
Chichester; who, on November 18, 1621, 
was one of the consecrators of Archbishop 
Laud. Again, about the same time, Antonio 
De Dominis, Archbishop of Spalatro, in 
Italy, abjured the Communion of the Church 
of Rome, and went to England. On Decem- 
ber 14, 1617, he was one of the consecrators 
of Bishop Felton, of Bristol, and Montague 
of Lincoln ; who were both among the conse- 
crators of Archbishop Laud. 

Archbishop Laud also traced his ecclesi- 



216 ORDERS, MISSION, AND JURISDICTION 

Part astical descent from Archbishop Parker, 
■**■ through Archbishop Grindall, who was conse- 
crated by him ; and who consecrated Arch- 
bishop Whitgift ; who consecrated Archbishop 
Bancroft; who consecrated Archbishop Ab- 
bot ; who consecrated Archbishop Laud. 

Archbishop Laud, who thus united the old 
English, Italian, and Irish lines of the Epis- 
copate, consecrated, on June 17, 1638, 
Bishop Duppa of Salisbury, afterwards trans- 
lated to Winchester; Bishop Morton, above 
mentioned, being one of the other consecra- 
tors. Bishop Duppa, on October 18, 1660, 
consecrated Archbishop Sheldon ; from whom 
all English, Scottish, and American Bishops 
can trace their descent. 

(St. xi. How are the American Bishops 
descended from Archbishop Sheldon ? 

21. Archbishop Sheldon presided at the 
consecration of Bishop Compton ; who pre- 
sided at that of Archbishop Sancroft ; who 
presided at that of Bishop Trelaroney ; who 
presided at that of Archbishop Potter ; who 
presided at that of Archbishop Herring ; who 
presided at that of Archbishop Cornwallis; 
who presided at that of Archbishop Moore ; 
who presided at that of Bishops White, Pro- 
vost, and Madison. 

(5H. xii. How are the American Bishops 
descended from Archbishop Sheldon, through 
the Scottish line ? 

21. Archbishop Sheldon presided at the 
consecration of Bishop Compton ; who pre- 
sided at that of Archbishop Sancroft; who 



OF AMERICAN BISHOPS. 217 

presided at that of Bishop White of Peter- Chap. 
borough, who was deprived of his see for^ "■*' 
refusing to take the oaths to William and 
Mary. Bishop White presided at the conse- 
cration of Bishop Hickes, the famous non- 
juror ; who presided at that of Bishop Gad- 
derar ; who presided at that of Bishop Rat- 
tray ; who presided at that of Bishop William 
Ealconar ; who presided at that of Bishop 
Kilgour ; who presided at that of Bishop 
Seabury. 

CI. xiii. Who was Bishop Hickes, the non- 
juror, and how was he consecrated ? 

&. At the English Revolution of 1688, 
several of the English Bishops considered 
themselves to be precluded, by the oaths 
which they had taken to King James II. 
from swearing allegiance to King William 
III. and Queen Mary II. They were de- 
prived of their sees by the civil power, as 
were many of the clergy of their benefices. 
Among these was the learned Dr. Hickes, 
who was Dean of Worcester. This led to a 
schism in the Church of England. A body 
of Churchmen, and those not the least 
attached to the Church, believed that the 
Bishops who were consecrated for all the 
sees vacated by deprivation were intruders 
and schismatics, and that the rest of the 
Bishops and clergy of the establishment had 
become schismatic by holding communion 
with them. They, therefore, set up a sepa- 
rate communion ; the members of which were 
called non-jurors, from their refusing to swear 
19 



218 ORDERS, MISSION, AND JURISDICTION 

Part allegiance to the reigning sovereigns. Three 
; of the non-juring Bishops, desiring to pre- 
serve the succession in the body over which 
they presided, consecrated Hickes, suffragan 
Bishop of Thetford, to which situation he had 
been named, in pursuance of their advice, by 
King James, after his flight. 

(&. xiv. Was that regular ? 

Qt. There are grave objections to its regu- 
larity, and it is to be feared that the proceed- 
ing was schismatical ; but that would only 
affect the mission, not the orders of Hickes. 

(&. xv. From w T hat you have said, it would 
seem that the validity of the orders of the 
American Church rests on that of the orders 
of Archbishop Cranmer, Hampton, and De 
Dominis, and of Bishop Stokesly. Can the 
succession of these Bishops be traced to the 
Apostles ? 

Qt. The succession of these Bishops cannot 
be traced to the Apostles by records ; nor 
can that of any Bishop in the world be so 
traced. The evidence on which the succes- 
sion of the ancient Bishops rests, is this: 
By the universal consent of the Christian 
Church, down to the sixteenth century, no 
man was accounted a Bishop who had not 
been consecrated by other Bishops. Hence 
it follows, that if any man was permitted to 
hold a see, and officiate as a Bishop, his 
contemporaries, especially those over whom 
he presided, and the Bishops with whom he 
acted, must have been satisfied that he had 
been consecrated. Upon this argument rests 



OF AMERICAN BISHOPS. 219 

the proof of the succession of all the Bishops Chap. 

in the world, including those of Italy, where v j 

there is not, and never was, any doubt of the 
existence of the succession, in which, of 
course, Archbishop De Dominis participated, 
as well as any other Italian Bishop. 

The same remarks will apply to Ireland. 
The succession of the Irish Bishops, in the 
reign of Mary I., is conceded on all hands ; 
nor is it pretended that there has been any 
omission of consecration since that period. 

, So in England. Up to the Keformation, 
the continuance of the succession is not de- 
nied. The attacks on the consecration of 
Archbishop Parker have failed ; and we trace 
the Episcopal descent of our American Bishops 
to Archbishop Cranmer, whose regular succes- 
sion from the Apostles was never denied. 

But this must not be understood, as if it 
were not possible to trace the succession, 
beyond the Bishops we have named by re- 
cords. Many records no doubt, exist, although 
as the facts recorded in them have never been 
denied, they have never been published. Still 
there is not supposed to be any case in which 
the records of a series of consecrations, reach- 
ing to the Apostles, exists. The defect, how- 
ever, seems abundantly supplied by the facts 
which have been mentioned; which, accord- 
ing to the principles of human nature, show 
a failure in the succession to be impossible. 

CI. xvL Is there no other objection to the 
orders of the American Bishops ? 

21. Yes; the Romanists pretend that the 



220 ORDERS, MISSION, AND JURISDICTION 

Part office for the consecration of Bishops, form- 
f erly used in the English and Irish Churches, 
is incapable of conveying Episcopal authority ; 
and that the persons consecrated Bishops in 
the English, Irish, Scottish, and American 
Churches, are incapable of receiving the grace 
of consecration, because they are not priests. 
Their priesthood is denied, because the office 
used in those Churches, for ordaining priests, 
is not capable of conveying the priestly 
character. 

(fii. xvii. What is their objection to the officp 
for the consecration of Bishops ? 

Qt. That up to the year 1662, that office, 
as used in the Churches of England and Ire- 
land, did not, in what is technically called 
the form, that is the words spoken while the 
hands of the consecrators, are on the head 
of the elect, make any mention of the Epis- 
copal office. 

(S. xviii. What answer do you give to 
this objection ? 

Qi. That the very same omission exists in 
the Romish form. 

(EX. xix. What objections do they make to 
the office for ordaining priests ? 

Ql. They formerly took many objections 
to that office ; all of which, except two, it is 
now conceded were frivolous. The first is the 
same in substance, with their objection to the 
consecration office. The second is that there 
is, in the office, no express grant of any power 
to offer sacrifice. 

(SI. xx. What answer do you give to the 
first of these objections? 



OF AMERICAN BISHOPS. 221 

21. The same as to the same objection to the Chap, 
consecration office ; that the same omission 
exists in the Romish office, which is, in both 
cases, far less explicit than the Anglican. 

<fll. xxi. What answer do you give to the 
second objection ? 

21. I have several answers. The first, that 
if the power to offer sacrifice is necessary to 
the administration of the Blessed Sacrament 
of the Body and Blood of Christ, it is included 
in the power to dispense the Sacraments, 
which is very unequivocally given, in the An- 
glican form. Again, that if the power to 
offer the peculiar Sacrifice of which the Ro- 
manists dream, is meant, it is not necessary, 
because no such sacrifice is possible. Lastly, 
that the words, on the absence of which the 
Romanists insist as invalidating ordinations 
performed by the Anglican Ritual, cannot be 
necessary, the Church of Rome herself being 
the judge, since she recognises as validly or- 
dained the Priests of the Greek Church, while 
these words are no more to be found in the 
Greek, than in the English ritual. More- 
over, they were not found in the ancient ritu- 
als of the Roman Church for many centuries. 

©,. xxii. Is it true that none but a Priest 
is capable of being consecrated a Bishop ? 

21. No ; for in the ancient Church, there 
are instances of such ordinations, and Father 
Courayer has proved that there were form- 
erly Popes who were consecrated Bishops of 
Rome, while they were still only Deacons. 

<flt. xxiii. Are ordinations conferred u per 
19* 



222 ORDERS, MISSION, AND JURISDICTION 

P^* T solium" passing over the intermediate orders, 
IIL null? 

21. The practice of the Church in primitive 
times is in favour of their validity. Even in 
the particular Church of Rome, the Bishops 
seem frequently to have been elected from 
among the deacons, and ordained per saltum. 
The principle on which this is justified is, that 
the Episcopate comprises virtually all other 
orders in itself. Even on the supposition 
that the Episcopate is an extension of the 
presbyterate, or rather a jurisdiction than a 
new order, still in conferring it the presby- 
terate is included, because th^ latter is essen- 
tial to the former. Such seems to be the more 
probable opinion, though many theologians 
have held that the Episcopate conferred per 
saltum is invalid. 

(El. xxiv. Whence did the first American 
Bishops derive mission ? 

21. Being consecrated Bishops, they had 
their share in the grant, "As My Father 
hath sent Me, even so send I you;" and in 
the command, "Go ye into all the world and 
preach the Gospel to every creature." Of 
course they had mission, or were sent, to all 
those parts of the world, in which they might 
find themselves in a capacity of exercising 
the Episcopal office without interfering with 
the sphere of duty alloted to others. 

(El. xxv. How did they obtain special mis- 



sion 



v 



21. Special mission is nothing more, so 
far as relates to the Bishop who possesses it, 



OF AMERICAN BISHOPS. 228 

than a special obligation to exercise the gift Chap. 
of general mission, in a particular place, and 
among a particular people. So far as relates 
to the people under the charge of such a 
Bishop, it only imports a special obligation, 
to submit themselves specially to him, who 
has become their superior by being placed 
specially over them, to exercise that authority, 
which he possesses generally over all who 
have no special Bishop assigned to them. As 
relates to other Bishops, it imports an obli- 
gation not to interfere with the relations 
established between any Bishop and his flock. 
When, therefore, any number of Christians, 
who are not under the spiritual jurisdiction 
of any Bishop, or connected with any diocese, 
or organized Church, agree to erect the terri- 
tory, within which they live, into a diocese, 
and to receive, as their Bishop, any duly con- 
secrated Bishop, who is not under Church 
censure, and so has general mission, and who 
is not connected with any diocese, and so at 
liberty to take charge of them, without aban- 
doning or neglecting other duties, and who is 
willing so to do, the relation of pastor and 
flock seems to be sufficiently constituted. This 
theory was realized, to the letter, in the case 
of the organization of the diocese of Illinois. 
In 1835, that diocese was admitted, with its 
Bishop at its head, into union with the Gen- 
eral Convention. It had been organized by 
the Clergy and Laity of the State of Illinois, 
then a very small band indeed, and not enti- 
tled, under the canons of the American 



Part 
III. 



224 ORDERS, MISSION, AND JURISDICTION 

Church to elect a Bishop. They proceeded, 
, however, before seeking union with the Gen- 
eral Convention, and submitting to its laws, 
to elect Bishop Chase, their present Bishop, 
the first Bishop of Illinois. Bishop Chase 
was then a vacant Bishop, having resigned 
the diocese of Ohio, over which he had pre- 
sided for many years ; he accepted the elec- 
tion ; and the diocese of Illinois, thus com- 
pletely organized, was received as part of 
the American Church. 

When several such dioceses are formed at 
the same time, and in the same neighbour- 
hood, and mutually agree to respect each 
other's limits, and to unite, to a certain ex- 
tent, in mutual good offices and legislation 
for the good of the whole, the case is still 
stronger. This was substantially the case at 
the formation of the elde* dioceses of the 
American Church. 

(El. xxvi. Was the territory of the United 
States free from obligations to other Bishops ? 

21. Yes : the authority of the Bishop of 
London was, in fact, relinquished : the actual 
Bishop of London signed the first letter of 
the English Bishops, in answer to the appli- 
cation for the Episcopate, and made no ob- 
jection to the new arrangement. 

(JH. xxvii. But were there not Romanist 
Bishops in the country ? 

21. Even if there had been, the schismatic 
character of the Romish Church is such, that 
it may be doubted, whether Bishops in Com- 
munion with her have mission at all ; but, 



OF AMERICAN BISHOPS. 225 

in fact, there were none. It was not until Chap. 
1790, after the complete organization of the v IIJ * 
American Church, that the Pope undertook, 
by virtue of his usurped authority, to erect 
the whole of the United States into one dio- 
cese, the see of which he fixed in Baltimore. 
In August of that year, Dr. John Carrol was 
consecrated the first Bishop of Baltimore, and, 
in December, he arrived in his pretended 
diocese. 

(El. xxviii. But were there not Methodist 
Bishops in the country, who had, or claimed 
jurisdiction? 

21. There were two persons connected with 
the Methodist society who called themselves 
Bishops ; but they had, as such, neither orders 
nor mission ; and one of them, in fact, no 
orders at all. Dr. Coke, one of these persons, 
was a presbyter of the Church of England, 
who had permitted himself to be ordained 
" a superintendent," by the Rev. John Wesley, 
another presbyter of that Church. Mr. As- 
bury, the other of these pretended Bishops, 
had no orders, but what he had received from 
his colleague, by whom he had been ordained 
deacon and elder., and consecrated Bishop. 

(El. xxix. Is there any other objection, 
which is taken to the mission of the American 
Bishops ? 

31. The Romanists pretend that they can 
have no mission ; because they are heretics 
and schismatics, and also, because they have 
received no mission or jurisdiction from the 
Pope ; whom they assert to be the sole source 
of both. 



226 ORDERS, MISSION, AND JURISDICTION 

Part <&. X xx. What answer do you give to these 
f objections ? 

21. To the first, we say, that the Ameri- 
can Church is not heretical, since she receives 
the Nicene Creed ; which was declared by the 
General Councils to be the faith. To the 
second, we say, that she is not schismatical, 
since she has never separated from, or refused 
communion with, any pure Church. Nay, she 
has- never even separated from the Church of 
Rome, which is herself schismatical, by the 
very act of refusing communion with the Eng- 
lish and American Churches upon frivolous 
and, in fact, sinful grounds. As to the third, 
we say, that the Pope is not the source of 
mission or jurisdiction ; that, in fact, he be- 
comes a schismatic, by setting up that un- 
founded claim, and refusing communion with 
those who do not acknowledge it. 

CI. xxxi. What pretence is there for this 
claim of the Pope ? 

21. It is part of what is called the Papal 
supremacy, and rests on the notion that the 
Pope, as Bishop of Rome, is the successor of 
St. Peter, who, the Romanists say, had su- 
preme authority given him in the Church, so 
that the other Apostles derived their mission 
and authority through him. 

©. xxxii. What is it necessary that they 
should establish to make out this claim ? 

%. Four things. First, that St. Peter had 
such a supremacy among the Apostles, that 
they and all other Bishops derive their mission 
and authority through him. Second, that it 



OF AMERICAN BISHOPS. 227 

was intended that St. Peter should have sue- Chap 
cessors. in this office or supremacy. Third, . . "*• 
that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome. Fourth, ' y ~"* 
that the supremacy was so united to the 
bishopric of Rome that his successor in one 
office is his successor in the other. 

(St. xxxiii. Had St. Peter any such supre- 
macy ? 

21. No; the Romanists pretend to ground 
the notion on sundry passages of Holy Scrip- 
ture ; such as those in which our Saviour 
directs St. Peter to strengthen his brethren, 
and to feed His sheep, or which mention our 
Lord's teaching the people out of Peter's 
boat, and some others of a similar character. 
But the obvious meaning of all these texts is Matt. xvi. 
not to their purpose, because it has no rela- ' 
tion to the right which they assert. They 
are, in fact, only able to wrest them to their 
purpose by reading them in the light of their 
interpretation of a single text, which is the 
only foundation of the claim. That text is, 
" I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, 
and upon this rock I will build my Chui-ch : 
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against 
it. And, I will give unto thee, the keys of the 
kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou 
shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven ; 
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, 
shall be loosed in heaven." This text would 
certainly bear the interpretation the Roman- 
ists put upon it, were there any evidence that 
it had been so interpreted at the time. But, 
unfortunately for them, the evidence is all 
the other way. 



228 orbehBj mission, and jurisdiction 

Part (&. xxxiv. Can you show from Scripture, 

v ~ # that the text, which you have just cited, did 
v not give St. Peter such a supremacy, that all 
Bishops must derive the mission and autho- 
rity from him ? 
Matt, xviii. <^ Yes. These words are only a promise 
of a future gift ; and in a subsequent pas- 
sage, in the same Gospel, the same promise 
was renewed to all the Apostles equally. On 
that occasion, our Blessed Lord, after direct- 
ing that he who will not hear the Church 
shall be regarded as a heathen and a publi- 
can, added these words, " Verily, verily, I say 
unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, 
shall be bound in heaven : and whatsoever ye 
shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven." 
But both these promises were fulfilled to- 
il? 11 ^ xx ' 21 ' g etner ? wheii our Saviour gave, not only to 
St. Peter, but to all the Apostles jointly, their 
Commission, in words of present grant, and 
of signification the most extensive that can be 
conceived : " As my Father hath sent Me, 
even so send I you. And when he had said 
this, he breathed on them, and saith unto 
them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose- 
soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto 
them, and whosesoever sins ye retain they 
are retained." Again ; He also spoke equally 
to them all, when He said, "All power is 
given unto Me in heaven and in earth. Go 
ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing 
them in the name of the Father, and of the 
Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; teaching them 
to observe all things, whatsoever I have com- 



■ 



OF AMERICAN BISHOPS. 229 

manded you : and lo, I am with you always, Chap. 
even unto the end of the world. Amen." It t 
seems perfectly clear, from these passages, 
that all the Apostles received both their mis- 
sion and orders directly from our Blessed 
Saviour himself, and not through St. Peter ; 
a fact which entirely overthrows the Romish 
explanation of their favourite text. More- 
over, there is no instance in the whole of the 
New Testament of any one Bishop deriving 
his jurisdiction through St. Peter; although 
it appears by the sacred volume, that Timothy 
and Titus derived theirs through St. Paul. 
Ecclesiastical history tells us of Bishops of 
Rome placed by St. Peter, but even in this 
St. Paul appears to have acted with him. But 
if he had not, and St. Peter had commis- 
sioned some Bishops alone, that is no more 
than is known to have been done by the other 
Apostles, especially St. Paul and St. John, jj^Vitt" 1 
who certainly derived neither their orders nor xx ™i. joim 
their mission from St. Peter. 

(EX. xxxv. Had St. Peter any successors 
peculiarly his, and in an office different from 
that held by the other Apostles ? 

21. St. Peter does not appear to have held 
any office different from the other Apostles, 
or to have differed from them at all, except 
in a primacy of honor, in virtue of which he 
is always named first in the list, and which 
was in its nature, strictly personal. He could, 
therefore, have had no successors in an office 
which he never held. It is remarkable, too, 
that all the texts on which the Romanists 
20 



280 ORDERS, MISSION, AND JURISDICTION 

Part re ly for the supremacy of St. Peter, have 
t some special relation to his person ; and in 
none of them is any mention made of suc- 
cessors, or of perpetuity, while our Blessed 
Lord expressly promised to be with the whole 
body of the Apostles until the end of the 
world, which implied that in the office, which" 
they held jointly and equally, they were to 
have successors until the end of the world. 

(&. xxxvi. Was St. Peter Bishop of Rome ? 

21. There is no Scriptural evidence that 
St. Peter was at Rome ; % and he certainly 
did not go there until after St. Paul. There 
is, however, sufficient evidence in ancient au- 
thors, that he was at Rome and suffered mar- 
tyrdom there ; but it is not certain that he 
was ever Bishop of Rome. On the contrary, 
some of the old Ecclesiastical writers tell us, 
that he himself consecrated no less than 
three Bishops of Rome, whose names are all 
included in the lists of the Popes. Now only 
one of these can have been, in any proper 
sense, a successor of St. Peter, unless we 
suppose, without evidence, that St. Peter was 
Bishop of Rome, and resigned that office 
during his lifetime. If he did so, he either 
retained his supposed supremacy or he did 
not; if he did, then the supremacy is not 
annexed to the see of Rome; and he who 
was in that see at the death of St. Peter, had 
no more claim to it than any other Bishop ; 
and so of all his successors. If St. Peter 
resigned his supremacy, it is strange that no 
mention is any where made of so remarkable 



■ 

I 



I 

1 



■ 



OF AMERICAN BISHOPS. 231 

an event, as one which subjected the whole Chap, 
College of Apostles, including their Prince, 
to a new Primate who had never seen the 
Lord. 

(*H. xxxvii. Is it certain that St. Peter 
consecrated the three first Bishops of Rome ? 

%. No. Eusebius says that Linus, the first 
of them, obtained the Episcopate after the 
martyrdom of St. Peter and St. Paul, and 
that he held it twelve years, and transferred 
it to Annencletus, in the second year of the 
reign of Titus. If his account be correct, 
there must have been an interval between the 
death of St. Peter and the consecration of 
Linus of several months. But, notwithstand- 
ing Eusebius, the prevailing opinion is, that 
St. Peter consecrated three Bishops of Rome. 

(21. xxxviii. What is the authority for the 
belief that St. Peter consecrated the early- 
Bishops of Rome ? 

%. Irenseus and Tertullian, who both lived 
in the second century, near two hundred 
years before Eusebius, and St. Clement, him- 
self the third Bishop of Rome, as reported 
by Ruflinus. 

<St. xxxix. Supposing St. Peter to have 
been Bishop of Rome, and to have been the 
fountain of mission and jurisdiction, what 
evidence is there that the Bishops of Rome 
are his successors in the office of dispenser 
of mission and jurisdiction ? 

Qt. There is none. For many centuries see pt. .ii. ch. 
no such claim was made by the Bishops of 
Home, and the existence of such a right 



232 ORDERS, MISSION, AND JURISDICTION 

Part would be inconsistent with the general course 
t of history, and with the canons of the General 
Councils of which notice has already been 
taken. 

(fit. xl. The remarks which you have made 
on the mission and jurisdiction of the Ameri- 
can Bishops, appear to apply more particu- 
larly to those Bishops whose dioceses lie 
within the original territory of the United 
States. Do they also apply to the territories 
acquired since 1783 ? 

21. Not fully. Lousiana, Florida, Texas, 
California, and New Mexico, were all acquired 
from nations in communion with the Church 
of Rome. Much of the territory included 
in them was within the dioceses of Romish 
Bishops. Some portions of it were not so in- 
cluded ; other portions, although nominally 
included in some diocese, were really uninha- 
bited wildernesses, which have been colo- 
nized from the older portions of the United 
States, by persons who did not acknowledge 
the jurisdiction of the Romish Bishops, and 
over whom no jurisdiction was practically en- 
forced. To these two classes of places, the 
principle which we have laid down, seems to 
apply. But there remain places in which the 
title of American Bishops to jurisdiction must 
depend upon the schismatic character of the 
Romish Church. 

©,. xli. How is that Church schismatic ? 

Qt. We are not now speaking of that formal 
schism, which consists in setting altar against 
altar within the same diocese, but of that 



OF AMERICAN BISHOPS. 233 

virtual schism by which a diocese may cut Cha?. 
itself off from the communion of the Catholic 
Church, as the Donatists did. The Donatists Y 
were orthodox in the faith, but they were 
schismatics, because they refused communion 
with the true Catholics, on account of that 
which the Donatists accounted laxity of dis- 
cipline. The Romanists refuse communion 
with all Churches which do not acknowledge 
the pretended universal jurisdiction of the 
Bishop of Rome. They are, therefore, pre- 
cisely in the condition of the Donatists, within 
whose dioceses the Catholic Church never 
hesitated to send Bishops. Moreover, the 
services of the Church being celebrated in a 
tongue "not understanded of the people," 
are unprofitable, and she offers only a muti- 
lated Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, con- 
cerning which it may be doubted, whether it 
is a Sacrament at all. Certainly, it is not * 

" dulv ministered according to Christ's ordi- xxxix Art. 

" ^^ Art icit" 

nance, in all those things that, of necessity, 
are requisite unto the same." Besides, in this 
Sacrament, she professes to reiterate the one 
great sacrifice, and to offer a direct and ori- 
ginal propitiation for sin. Lastly, both her 
Sacramental and other services are compli- 
cated with idolatrous addresses to the Blessed 
Virgin and other saints. For all these rea- 
sons it is impossible that her services can be 
joined in by true Catholics. Yet she, for- 
mally or virtually, refuses communion on any 
other terms. She is thus clearly schismatic 
on several grounds. True Catholics, there- 
20* 



234 CONSTITUTION 

Part fore, may, and in fact must, hold their sepa- 
• • rate assemblies in places which are within the 
dioceses of Romish Bishops, or what would 
be their dioceses, did not their schism destroy 
their mission and jurisdiction. They must 
have, therefore, priests of their own, who 
must be under the authority of Bishops, who 
will be the true Bishops of the country. 



CHAPTER IV. 

OF THE INTERNAL CONSTITUTION OF THE 
AMERICAN CHURCH. 

(EL. i. Upon what principles is the internal 
constitution of the American Church founded ? 

Qt. It is founded upon two great principles. 
One of these is of Divine origin ; that the 
power of ordination and the chief government 
of the Church are vested in Bishops. The 
other is of human origin ; that the power of 
the Bishops must be checked by that of the 
Clergy and laity. 

(EL. ii. How is the first of those principles 
applied ? 

Qt. By placing each diocese under the care 
of a Bishop who has the exclusive power of 
ordination, and the chief judicial authority of 
the iiocese, with the rights of visitation and 



OF THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 235 

inspection. In the united Church it is ap- Chap. 
plied in uniting all the Bishops into one body, v 
which is a co-ordinate branch of the General 
Convention ; without whose assent no action 
of that body is binding. 

(El. iii. How is the second principle ap- 
plied? 

21. By placing on each diocese a standing 
committee, consisting sometimes of clergymen 
only, and sometimes of clergymen and lay- 
men, but always elected by the votes of the 
Clergy and laity, without whose assent the 
Bishop is prohibited from ordaining, and who 
constitute generally his council of advice. It 
is further applied by limiting the exercise of 
the judicial functions of the Bishop, so that 
they cannot be exercised without the concur- 
rence of presbyters ; to whom a portion of 
judicial authority is given, sometimes as 
assessors to the Bishop, sometimes as a court 
whose action is a condition precedent to his. 
In the legislative department all authority is, 
in each diocese, committed to a mixed con- 
vention of Clergy and laity. In the United 
Church, the same principle is applied by 
placing in the General Convention, a House 
of Clerical and Lay Deputies, co-ordinate to 
the House of Bishops, without whose assent 
no action of that body is binding. 

(&. iv. How are the relative rights of the 
Clergy and laity secured ? 

21. By giving to each a negative upon the 
other in all legislative action, whether in the 
General or the Diocesan Conventions. The 



236 

Part mode of doing so is, that a small number of 
III. persons are authorized to call for a vote by 
^ orders. The clerical and lay members of the 
body then vote separately, and unless a ma- 
jority of the two concur nothing is done. In 
the election of a Bishop, a matter which is 
entirely committed to the regulation of each 
Diocesan Convention, the general, if not uni- 
versal, practice is for the Clergy to nominate 
a candidate whom the laity either reject or 
confirm. 

(EX. v. How are the' rights of individual 
dioceses secured ? 

Qt. By giving them, in the House of Cleri- 
cal and Lay Deputies, an equal representa- 
tion ; and by authorizing each diocese to call 
for a vote by dioceses : when the voice of each 
is equal, whether the number of its deputies 
present be large or small. 

(El. vi. Upon what principle is this done ? 

Qt. Upon several. In the ancient Church, 
the diocese seems to have been considered as 
the unit, and accordingly, in all councils, the 
votes of all Bishops who only at that time 
voted in councils were equal. Again, the 
American Church is a union of dioceses, not 
of individuals. Moreover, looking at the sub- 
ject in the light of expediency, it is not con- 
sidered right that a large diocese should 
attain such a position, as, by its large re- 
presentation, virtually to govern the whole 
Church. 

(Si. vii. What are the boundaries between 
the authority of the General Convention and 
that of the Diocesan Conventions ? 



etc. 237 

21. They are not well ascertained, further Chap. 
than that the General Convention shall have ( ^- 
exclusive authority in matters relating to the 
Prayer Book and to the trial of Bishops, 
the Diocesan Conventions in matters relating 
. to the election of Bishops, and the trial of 
presbyters and deacons. In other matters, 
the practice has been for each to legislate on 
any subject, not expressly allotted to the 
other, which might seem to require attention. 
So long as the canons of the two bodies can 
stand together, both classes are respected. 
What would be the result in case of collision, 
or by what rules such a case would Jbe de- 
cided, it is impossible to say, since nothing 
of the kind has yet occurred. 



CHAPTER V. 

OF THE RELATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. 

<&. i. What are the relations of the Church 
and the State in the United States ? 

21. They are entirely independent of each 
other. 

6H. ii. What do you mean by independent ? 

21. That each society has a right to regu- 
late its concerns without reference to the will 
of the other. 

<&. iii. But has it not been said, that, in a 



238 THE RELATION 

Part Christian country, Church and State are two 
names for one society, because both are com- 
posed of the same members ? 

%. It has been so said ; but it is not true. 
In the first place, the two societies are not 
composed of the same members theoretically. 
In the second place, they are not composed 
of the same members practically. In the 
third place, if they were composed of the same 
members, that would not make them one 
society. 

(El. iv. Why are they not composed of the 
same members theoretically? 

Qt. Because there are in every State un- 
Baptized children, and even adults, who are 
not members of the Church, and excommuni- 
cated persons who are hardly such. On the 
other hand, the Church in every nation is a 
part of the Church Catholic ; and every 
member of that Church is, for the time, a 
member of that branch of it within whose 
bounds he may at any time be found ; al- 
though he may be an alien, or even an enemy 
to the State within whose territory it is 
placed. 

(El. v. How are they not practically com- 
posed of the same members ? 

91. Because there are, in every nation, 
numbers of persons who have, at most, a 
nominal but unpractical connexion with the 
Church. Besides in every country in which 
any freedom of opinion is allowed, there will 
be many open dissenters from the Church. 

(fH. vi. Have any experiments been made 



OF CHURCH AND STATE. 239 

to bring about an actual existence of identity Chap. 
between the members of the Church and those , 
of the State ? 

Qt. Yes; and in three different modes. 
One, that of compelling, by persecution, all 
persons to unite themselves with the Church. 
In Spain, Portugal, and Italy, this course has 
been successful, so far as externals are con- 
cerned. The Puritans of New England took 
a second mode, by confining the rights of 
citizenship to those persons who were nominal 
members of that which they were pleased to 
call the Church. But the experiment failed, 
although the aid of the first mode was called 
in, not very sparingly. The third mode is, 
that w T hich the English government is now 
adopting ; it is that which is called compre- 
hension, and consists in compelling the Church 
to modify her doctrines, so as to comprehend 
all the opinions which are entertained by any 
member of the State. 

(El. vii. What are the objections to the first 
of those modes ? 

3U There are several. It degrades the 
Church as a body, by making her use the 
civil sword for the purpose of persecution ; 
it introduces the State into a position for 
which she is not fit, that of a judge of doc- 
trines ; it injures both, by making hypocrites; 
persons to save their lives profess union with 
the Church, while they are, in secret, her bit- 
ter enemies. The result of the whole is a 
general looseness of morals. 

ill. viii. What are the objections to the 
second mode ? 



240 THE RELATION 

Part 9V. The same as to the first ; with the ad- 
— " ^ditional one, that it has never been found to 
succeed. The coercion not being stringent 
enough to make men hypocritical members of 
the Church, makes them bitter enemies to 
both the Church and the State ; and the whole 
terminates in the overthrow of the system. 

<2l. ix. What are the objections to the third 
mode ? 

91. It maizes the State virtually the judge 
of doctrine ; or, more accurately speaking, 
it involves a denial that there is such a thing 
as objective truth, and thus deposes the 
Church from her " authority in controversies 
of faith.' ' Moreover, it deprives her of the 
power of exercising discipline, without the 
consent of the State; for if the State is to 
lose a citizen by excommunication, she will 
claim a right to be consulted about excommu- 
nication. 

(El. x. Can you briefly state an objection 
which applies to all three modes ? 

91. Yes. They all in volve the idea of 
tyranny over men's consciences. The two 
first, over the consciences of those without the 
Church ; the last, over those of the members 
of the Church. 

6H. xi. Suppose that, by any of these 
modes, or by any other, it were brought about, 
that all the inhabitants of the territory of 
some particular nation were members both 
of the Church and of the State; would it 
follow that the Church and State were one 
society ? 



OF CHURCH AND STATE. 241 

Qt. It would not. The Church in a par- 
ticular nation is only a branch of the Church 
Catholic ; which is one entire society, ex- 
tending far beyond the bounds of any parti- 
cular nation, and including many persons 
who are not members of the State. Conse- 
quently the members of the State in a par- 
ticular nation, can never be the same with 
the members of the Church. 

(&. xii. Is that your only reason for saying 
that, in the supposed state of things, the 
Church and State would not be one society ? 

Ql. No. For a society is one, not only 
by the identity of its members, but by the 
identity of its objects, its organization and its 
officers. The objects of the Church and State 
are different. That of the Church is to pro- 
mote the eternal salvation of all men, as well 
those who are not as those who are her mem- 
bers. That of the State is to promote the 
temporal welfare of her own members. Their 
organizations are different. That of the 
Church being, in some degree, of Divine ap- 
pointment, and therefore, immutable, cannot 
be accommodated to promote the objects of 
the State without any reference to which it 
was originated. That of the State is deve- 
loped from time to time by circumstances in 
conformity with the exigencies of the time 
and place. Each is adapted to its particular 
purpose, which is the carrying on the busi- 
ness of the society to which it belongs, with 
reference to the object of that society. Hence 
it has never happened, and never will happen, 
21 




242 THE RELATION 

Part that in any country, the organizations of the 
two societies are the same. Lastly, the offi- 
cers of the two societies must, for the most 
part, be different men ; because the qualities 
which fit a man for office in one of the socie- 
ties, are very apt to unfit him for it in the 
other ; and because the duties of the two sets 
of officers are both so extensive and engross- 
ing, as to occupy the whole man, and leave 
him no time to attend to the duties belonging 
to the other class. 

<©. xiii. What approach has been made, 
in the United States, towards an identity of 
the members of the Church with those of the 
State ? 

21. In the United States, the members of 
the Church are a small minority of the citi- 
zens, so that the whole theory is utterly in- 
applicable to our condition, even if it were 
true. Moreover, the State, happily, repudi- 
ates the notion of any identity or union be- 
tween Church and State, as heartily as the 
Church. 

(Q,. xiv. You distinguish between identity 
and union ; do you refer to any theory of 
Church and State, other than that which we 
have been discussing ? 

21. I refer to what is called the alliance 
of Church and State. 

(£1. xv. Explain ? 

21. The alliance of Church and State pro- 
ceeds upon the theory, that they are two dis- 
tinct societies ; which have entered into an 
agreement to aid each other in the perform- 
ance of their respective duties. 



OF CHURCH AND STATE. 243 

<fll. xvi. How can the State aid the Church Chap. 
in the performance of her duties ? v - 

21. The State is supposed to aid the Church 
in several ways. For instance, by providing 
for the support of the Clergy, and for de- 
fraying other expenses incidental to the duties 
of the Church, as those connected with public 
worship, or religious education. The State 
also sometimes attempts to aid the Church, 
by adcling the terrors of civil disabilities and 
temporal penalties to the censures of the 
Church. The state also aids the Church, by 
protecting her in the enjoyment of her pro- 
perty, and by defending her public assemblies 
from violent or indecent disturbance. 

(Gt. xvii. How does the Church aid the 
State in the performance of its duties ? 

21. By promoting, as true religion always 
will, the temporal welfare of all who embrace 
it ; by enforcing the duties of peace and civil 
obedience, and by drawing down the blessing 
of Almighty God, upon the communities 
within which it flourishes. 

(El. xviii. What are the objections to such 
an alliance ? 

21. They are many. Thus, the Church has 
no right to receive contributions forced from 
unwilling unbelievers by the terrors of the 
law, in order to relieve her believing members 
from their sacred obligation of contributing 
towards carrying on the warfare of the Lord 
against the world and the devil : a duty which 
they ought to regard, as it really is, a very 
high privilege. 



244 THE RELATION 

Part The temporal disabilities and penalties 
* j added to Church censures are, in fact, incon- 
sistent with the true nature of such censures, 
which ought to be addressed to the religious 
feeling only, and with the tests by which the 
ancient Church tried the sincerity of peni- 
tents. Such penalties or disabilities furnish a 
temporal motive to affect an unreal penitence ; 
while the object of the ancient Church always 
was, by making the price of. the return to 
Church privileges disagreeable and difficult, 
to try the strength of the religious desires of 
penitents for such privileges, against temporal 
inconveniences and humiliations. 

The protection of the property and the 
assemblies of the Church, is a duty w T hich the 
State owes to the members of the Church, as 
she does similar duties to all her subjects, as 
they are such ; and it can, therefore, furnish 
no basis, no consideration, as the lawyers 
say, for any bargain in w r hich the State can 
exact any thing from the Church in exchange 
for such protection. On the other hand, the 
Church can exact nothing of the State, for 
the performance of her part of the supposed 
contract, because it is all no more than her 
simple duty independent of any contract. 

(El. xix. What have been found to be the 
consequences of such alliances ? 

&. The State, in consideration of the pro- 
vision for the expenses of the Church claims, 
a right of naming the individual clergymen 
who are to be the recipients of her bounty ; 
and, finally, that of making such appoint- 



OF CHURCH AND STATE. 245 

ments independently of the negative which 
it is the duty of the Church to retain upon all 
such appointments; because, without it, she 
can have no sufficient security for the faith 
or morals of her ministers. The State having 
once obtained this power, will not fail to use 
it for her own benefit, or even for that of the 
individuals who may from time to time wield 
her powers, wdthout regard to the interests 
of the Church. 

Under pretence that she is bound to en- 
force the censures of the Church, she assumes 
the right to decide who are proper subjects of 
those censures, and thus, indirectly, to de- 
cide what are the doctrines of the Church. 
Hence, it has never occurred, where such a 
union existed between the Church and the 
State, that the former was not cruelly op- 
pressed by the latter. 

(&. xx. But is it not the duty of the State 
to recognise the true Church ? 

2i. It is the duty of the State, as it is the 
duty of each individual who is a member of 
the State, to recognise the true Church ; be- 
cause it is his duty to believe in, and obey the 
Divine Revelation. But that is a duty which 
is between each individual and Almighty God 
or at most, between each individual^ and the 
Church. It is just as much the duty of every 
individual, that his recognition should be sin- 
cere and unforced, as that it should be made. 
Every step, then, taken by the State, beyond 
simple recognition, is a violation of the true 
principles of the Church. Nor can a simple 
21* 




246 THE RELATION 

Part recognition take place, unless it is a true and 
f real one, made heartily and sincerely, because 
the State itself, that is, the people of the 
State, do sincerely and heartily believe in the 
existence and doctrines of the true Church. 
Unless such a recognition can be so made, it 
must be deferred until the component parts 
of the State, in their individual capacities, 
are brought over to a different mind. Until 
then, the want of such a recognition by the 
State is to be excused by invincible igno- 
rance ; just as the want of such. a recogni- 
tion is excused in the case of the individuals. 
In other words, the recognition of the Church 
by the State is only a public and united ex- 
pression of her recognition by the individuals 
who compose the State. The possibility of 
making it, then, depends on the fact, of whe- 
ther the individual recognitions, of which it 
is made up, really exist. The duty is, in other 
respects, precisely parallel to the individual 
duty, and the non-performance of it, is ex- 
cusable on similar grounds to those which ex- 
cuse from the performance of the individual 
duty. Moreover, the duty, in both cases, is 
one for the neglect of % which no man is ac- 
countable to any human authority. 

(Si. xxi. But have not the Church and 
State authority over the same matters ? May 
not their decisions clash ? In such a case, if 
they are independent of each other, who is 
to decide between them? 

21. They have both jurisdiction over the 
same matters ; but their jurisdictions are 



OF CHURCH AND STATE. 247 

for different purposes, and rest on different 
foundations. The State judges of actions as 
they are, or are not, civil wrongs, and affect 
the temporal welfare of her citizens. The 
Church judges of them as they are, or are 
not, sins, and affect the consciences of the 
actor. If the matter be merely a temporal 
one, touching this world's goods, and its de- 
cisions clash, it is the duty of the Church to 
give way, so far as relates to the actual dis- 
posal of the property. But as relates to the 
conscience # of the party, the Church has a 
right to insist on his conforming to her laws, 
and to enforce those laws by merely ecclesias- 
tical censures; of which, if they carry no 
temporal disabilities with them, the Church 
has no right to complain. The individual 
must then choose between his Church privi- 
leges, and the exercise of the power which he 
derives from the imperfection, misapplication, 
or perversion of the temporal laws. 

<£L xxii. What are the actual relations be- 
tween the Church and the State, in the United 
States ? 

21. The Church professes obedience for 
conscience sake to the civil "powers that 
be ;" they, on their part, afford her protection 
of her assemblies for public worship from in- 
terruption, in common with those of all sects 
and religions, and also the protection of the 
' property of the Church in her corporate ca- 
pacity, to the same extent, in the same man- 
ner with other property. 

(Q. xxiii. Does the Church desire any thing 
*lse of the State ? 




248 3HE RELATION 

Part QV. The Church desires no exclusive pri- 
vileges of the State. She desires that, in 
common with all sects and religions, her sons 
may have the power of associating themselves 
into corporations, or legalized associations, 
with perpetual succession, for the purpose. of 
more conveniently holding the title to her 
houses of worship, and the other real estate 
which it may be necessary or convenient 
that she should hold in order to the carrying 
on her great work. 

(El. xxiv. Why is that necessary ? 

Qi. Because the courts of law require that 
all real property should belong to some per- 
son or corporation. If church property be 
intrusted to an individual, it is liable in his 
hands, or those of his heirs, to be perverted 
from Church purposes, and will, moreover, be 
liable for his debts. There is in such a case 
no definite or ascertainable person or persons, 
whom the courts recognise as interested in 
the matter and entitled to interfere, and 
demand their aid in preventing such perver- 
sion. The difficulty can only be gotten over 
by giving a legal standing to some body of 
Churchmen, in whom the legal right to pro- 
perty may reside, and who will, therefore, be 
entitled to protect it in the courts. 

(El. xxv. How are such corporations 
formed ? 

21. The right of forming corporations is 
regarded as belonging to the sovereign power. 
In Great Britain, it belongs to the Crown, 
the theoretical Sovereign; in the United 



OF CHURCH AND STATE. 249 

States, it is exercised by the legislative 
bodies. This right, so far as concerns the 
Church, is exercised in two different modes. 
In some States it is necessary to apply to the 
legislature for a special act of incorporation 
in each case. In others, power is given to a 
certain number of citizens to associate them- 
selves into a voluntary corporation, with the 
usual privileges of a legal one, including that 
of holding property to a certain limited 
amount. Most of the States permit such 
associations for the purpose of maintaining 
public worship, to * be formed in the easier 
mode ; but in the case of corporations to hold 
property for the purposes of Church educa- 
tion, or for any Church purposes, other than 
the maintenance of public worship, the direct 
interference of the legislature must be sought. 

(fil. xxvi. Does the State do her duty to the 
Church in this matter ? 

Qt. The power of doing so belongs not to 
the General Government, but to what are 
technically called the States. Most of these 
do their duty in this matter. Virginia is dis- 
tinguished by her obstinate refusal ta permit 
the existence within her jurisdiction of any 
corporation for the maintenance of public 
worship. New York has attempted to mo- 
nopolize education, and will no longer give 
the right of conferring academical degrees to 
any other institutions than the State Univer- 
sity ; which acknowledges no Church or creed, 
and will not extend the benefit of its degrees 
to those educated in any institution which 




250 THE BELATIONS OF THE CHURCH 

Part does. There may be in other parts of the 
■" country some similar facts. They are evi- 
dences, wherever they exist, of a misguided 
hatred of religion, disguised as a morbid 
fear for religious liberty; against which it 
is, in fact, waging war. In general, how- 
ever, the States are willing to do all that the 
Church ought to desire. 



CHAPTER VI. 



SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTER ON THE RELA- 
TIONS OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND TO THE 
STATE. 

(St. i. Are the relations of the Church and 
State the same in England, as in the United 
States ? 

21. No. In England there exists an alli- 
ance between Church and State, by means 
of whifih the Church is subjected to great 
evils. 

(£1. ii. What is the origin of that alliance ? 

21. From the time of Constantine, an alli- 
ance between Church and State has existed 
throughout Europe. The kings, as well of 
England as of other nations,., were always 
desirous to make the most of it for their own 
temporal advantage ; the clergy every where 
desired to check their encroachments. This 



OF ENGLAND TO THE STATE. 251 

led to a perpetual struggle between the ^ H / F 
governing powers of the nations and of the 
Churches. The Clergy of each nation being 
unable to sustain this struggle against the 
governing power of that nation, there was 
formed a kind of union among all the Clergy 
of Western Europe. Of this union, the Bishop 
of Rome, who, to the possession of the chief 
"bishopric of the West, united the character 
of a temporal prince, was naturally the head. 
These circumstances gave rise to the papal 
power, and to many of the corruptions of 
Romanism. When, in the sixteenth century, 
a portion of the clergy of Europe opened 
their eyes upon the corruptions of the Church, 
they found that they could - not get rid of 
them, without also getting rid of the papal 
power, by which they were sustained. To 
effect this object, they called in the aid of the 
temporal powers, which were always hostile , 
to the popes, and, as a protection against 
which their predecessors had built up that 
very papal power. The sovereigns in many 
places, readily answered to the call, and al- 
most every where availed themselves of the 
circumstances of the times to extend their 
power over the Church. 

(El. iii. What was the particular course of 
events in England ? 

%. Henry VIII., a profligate tyrant, was 
actuated in his dislike of the papal power, by 
private feelings as well as by the same inte- 
rests w T hich had impelled his predecessors in 
the same direction ; but not by any dislike to 



252 THE RELATIONS OF THE CHURCH 

Part the doctrinal corruptions of the Romanists, 
HI. -which, in fact, he held. He determined to 
throw off entirely the authority of the see of 
Rome. In this enterprise he was not willing 
to rely solely upon that portion of the Eng- 
lish Clergy who were seeking a doctrinal re- 
formation, and having it in his power, by a 
gross breach of faith, to force the whole body 
into his measures, he determined to do so. 
Before circumstances had induced him to de- 
clare against the Pope, he had thought it his 
interest that Cardinal Wolsey, his prime 
minister, should be invested with the' charac- 
ter of papal legate, and it was done with his 
full consent. But during the struggle be- 
tween the mediaeval kings of England and 
the popes, a law had been made imposing 
heavy penalties on any clergyman who should 
recognise the authority of a papal legate, 
without a license from the crown. In the 
case of Wolsey, the form of the license had 
been omitted ; the Clergy, however, recog- 
nised Wolsey's character, not apprehending 
any danger, since he was known to be the 
king's favourite, to have been appointed with 
his approbation, and his legatine character to 
be fully acknowledged at court. Indeed, it 
is quite probable that the great body of the 
Clergy did not know that a formal license 
had not issued under the great seal ; of which 
emblem of authority Wolsey himself, in the 
character of Lord Chancellor, was the keeper. 
Henry, however, did not scruple to avail him- 
self of this technical advantage, and threat- 



OF ENGLAND TO THE STATE. 253 

ened every clergyman in England with total Chap. 
ruin, unless the Convocation would acknow- v VI - 
ledge him to be the head of the Church in 
England. Notwithstanding their extremity, 
the Clergy refused to make such an acknow- 
ledgment, unless with the qualification, " so 
far as is permitted by the law of Christ. " The 
king was obliged to accept their acknowledg- 
ment with this qualification, and content him- 
self with the determination to interpret it his 
own way. Care was taken, in the act of 
Parliament accepting the submission, to make 
no mention of the qualification. Thus was 
annexed to the crown of England the title 
of " Head of the Church." 

(&. iv. How long did that title continue ? 

21. During the reigns of Henry VIII. and 
his son Edward VI. ; Mary, who reconciled 
herself to the Pope, formally renounced it ; 
and Elizabeth did not resume it, nor has it 
been borne by any of her successors. A por- 
tion of the power which the title expressed, 
they have, however, always retained. 

(El. v. How is that ? 

(El. Elizabeth, early in her reign, put forth 
certain injunctions, in which she undertook 
to explain the extent of her ecclesiastical 
authority, and thus vindicate the Church of 
England against the calumnies of the Roman- 
ists. The substance of these injunctions, 
touching this matter, was incorporated into 
the thirty-seventh article of the Church of 
England, where we read that " the Queen's 
majesty hath the chief power in this realm 
22 



254 THE RELATIONS OF THE CHURCH 

Part f England, and other her dominions, unto 
,whom the chief government of all estates of 
this realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or 
civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not 
or ought to be subject to any foreign juris- 
diction." Also, the same article, after ex- 
pressly denying to the sovereign the minis- 
try of the Word and Sacraments, goes on to 
assert that the Church only attributes to the 
sovereign, " that only prerogative which we 
see to have been given always to all godly 
princes in Holy Scriptures, by God himself, 
that they should rule all estates and degrees 
committed to them by God, whether they be 
ecclesiastical or temporal, and restrain, with 
the civil sword, the stubborn and evil doers/ ' 

(JH. vi. Is there not some discrepancy be- 
tween the two quotations which you have 
made ? 

Qt. Yes : The latter, which explains the 
foundation on which the royal supremacy 
rests, goes no further than to assert the right 
of the State to rule over all persons com- 
mitted to its charge, and is really nothing 
more than a proper renunciation of the claims 
of the mediaeval Clergy to be exempt from all 
civil jurisdiction ; but in the other passage, 
an additional principle is artfully introduced, 
by the insertion of the words " in all causes," 
which really subjects the Church to the 
State. 

(&. vii. How far is this subjection prac- 
tically carried? 

2i. In order to understand that matter 



OF ENGLAND TO THE STATE. 255 

fully, it is necessary to understand how the 
Church of England is supported. 

(flt. viii. How is* she supported? 

Qt. The Clergy are supported by lands and 
tithes, or more properly speaking, corn rents. 
The tithes were a tenth part of the produce 
of the land. Their origin was this. The pri- 
mitive Christians appropriated to God, for the 
support of His Church, one-tenth of their 
gains, which they offered at his altar. These 
offerings were applied to the payment of all 
the expenses, of whatever nature, which were 
necessary for the maintenance and propaga- 
tion of religion, within the diocese. When 
parishes were invented, and dioceses split 
up, a liberty was allowed to every man, who 
possessed an estate, and was willing to build 
a Church upon it, to appropriate the tithes 
of his estate, that is, the tenth part of its pro- 
duce, to the support of the clergyman ap- 
pointed to serve such Church, to whom the 
estate, the tithes of which were so appropri- 
ated, became a parish. The owner of the 
estate was also permitted to name the cler- 
gyman of the parish, subject to the approba- 
tion of the Bishop of the diocese. This 
change produced several effects ; it withdrew 
from the common funds of the diocese the 
tithes thus appropriated to the priest of a 
particular parish ; and it changed the charac- 
ter of the tithes themselves, from a voluntary 
offering of the cultivator of the land, to a 
permanent charge on the land itself, which 
the temporal law soon recognised and en- 




256 THE RELATIONS OF THE CHURCH 

Part forced. The lands of the Church were given 
f to her by the ancient owners for the support 
of particular bishoprics or (other) offices. 
These lands and the tithes, which last are 
now changed into corn rents, constitute the 
support of the Clergy of the Church of Eng- 
land. 

The other expenses of the Church, are met 
by what are called *" Church rates ;" that is, 
by an annual tax on the property in each 
parish, imposed by a vote at a meeting of rate 
payers. 

©,. ix. Do the representatives of persons 
who built Churches, and set apart the tithes 
of their estates for the support of the paro- 
chial clergymen still retain, in England, the 
right of naming the minister of the Church 
which their respective ancestors built and en- 
dowed ? 

21. They do, and that right is vendible : 
it is known to the law of England as an 
advowson. Moreover, the crown claims to 
be the founder of all Churches and ecclesias- 
tical offices, which cannot be shown to have 
been founded by some one else, either di- 
rectly or by the inference drawn from long 
possession or exercise of the advowson. By 
means of this claim, the crown has the no- 
mination to a very large number of benefices, 
both dignities and parishes. In fact, the 
crown nominates to all the bishoprics, all tho 
deaneries, about half the canonries, and one- 
tenth of the parishes. The nominations to 
the other benefices, are some in the hands of 



OF ENGLAND TO THE STATE. 257 

Bishops, some in those of other ecclesiasti- Chap. 

cal persons, or corporations, some in those v 

of lay corporations, the greater number in 
those of private men. But all are held by 
those who claim them as patrons, constituted 
such by the temporal law. 

(El. x. Does the Church of England pos- 
sess all the property which she once held ? 

21. No : a large proportion of the tithes 
was in papal times appropriated to the mo- 
nasteries and other ecclesiastical corporations, 
who were to provide for the performance of 
the pastoral duties. At the Reformation, all 
the tithes belonging to the monks passed into 
the hands of the crown. Many of them were 
granted to laymen. These are rightly said 
to be impropriated. Others were given to 
Bishops or other dignitaries in exchange for 
lands of greater value than the tithes. Much 
land was also taken by the crown either by 
way of exchanges disadvantageous to the 
Church, or without any pretence of equiva- 
lent. 

<&. xi. Does not the alliance between 
Church and State require that the State 
should protect the property of the Church? 

21. Yes ; but this article does not appear 
to have been well observed in England. 

ffii. xii. You said that it was necessary to 
know something of the mode of supporting 
the Church in England, to understand the 
manner in which the royal supremacy has 
been exercised. Can you now explain that 
matter ? 

22* 



- 258 THE RELATIONS OF THE CHURCH 

Part 21. Yes ; the royal supremacy, like other 
***" parts of the royal authority, has * passed into 
the hands of parliament, which has, under 
that pretence, assumed to itself a power of 
treating the property of the Church as its 
own, and has exercised that power in three 
very remarkable instances. 

It has changed the boundaries and in- 
creased the number of the bishoprics, abolish- 
ing some and establishing others, and distri- 
buting the property of all at its pleasure. 

It has abolished some of the other digni- 
ties, and diminished the income of others, 
appropriating their property to the support of 
the parochial ministers. 

It has changed the whole, or nearly the 
whole, of the tithes into corn rents, to the 
great advantage of the land-holders, at the 
expense of the tithe-holders. 

(fit. xiii. Were not these changes advan- 
tageous to the Church ? 

21. Perhaps some of them were ; . others 
certainly were not. But all were made with- 
out any consultation of the Church, and by 
a power external to her, and held by men of 
whom some were her enemies, and almost all 
indifferent to her. 

(JH. xiv. In what other modes is the royal 
supremacy exercised ? 

21. Chiefly in three. First, the determina- 
tion of ecclesiastical causes in the last resort, 
by a court appointed by, and deriving its au- 
thority from the crown. Second, the power 
of convening, proroguing, and dissolving the 



OF ENGLAND TO THE STATE. 259 

convocation, or legislature of the Church of 
England, with the further power of prevent- 
ing that body, when in session, from proceed- 
ing to any action without the royal license. 
Third, the appointment of Bishops. All these 
powers are vested in the crown by divers acts 
of parliament, but are, as I suppose, only 
binding on the Church, by virtue of the 
royal supremacy to which she has assented. 

(fit. xv. Have these powers been abused ? 

21. Every one of them. The right of de- 
ciding ecclesiastical causes, in the last resort, 
including causes which involve questions of 
doctrine, is vested in a court of lawyers, the 
members of which are not required to haye 
even a nominal connexion with the Church. 
The Convocation has never been allowed to 
sit for the despatch of business since 1717. 
Bishops have been selected, in some in- 
stances at least, because ^they were known to 
hold latitudinarian doctrines, and to be ob- 
noxious to the Church on that account. 

(fH. xvi. But when such selections are made, 
do not the existing Bishops refuse to conse- 
crate ? 

21. No ; the law has received an interpre- 
tation, which makes the nomination of the 
crown absolute in reality, although not in 
form, and subjects any Archbishop or Bishop 
who shall refuse to consecrate any person 
whom he shall be required by the crown, in 
legal form, to consecrate, to heavy penalties. 
No*prelate has yet been found with courage 
enough to risk those penalties. 




260 RELATIONS OF THE CHURCH, ETC. 

Part (&. xv ii. What does the Church of Eng- 
land get in exchange for all these disadvan- 
tages ? 

21. First, the protection of her property, 
after the fashion which has been explained. 
Second, the Church rates, granted annually 
by the votes of assemblies, in which those 
who pay have a right to vote, whether they 
are Churchmen or not; and which, besides 
being wrong in principle, are a fruitful source 
of litigation, heart burning, and unpopularity. 
Third, the enforcement of her excommunica- 
tions by temporal penalties, which is also 
wrong in principle, and a serious disadvantage 
to her. Fourth, seats in the House of Lords 
for her Bishops, which is in itself but an 
equivocal benefit, and in practice leads to a 
positive evil by keeping the number of 
Bishops too small to perform their proper 
duties, and by occupying the time and atten- 
tion of those which exist about temporal mat- 
ters. 

(&. xviii. Why then does not the Church 
of England withdraw from so unequal an alli- 
ance ? 

Qi. Because if she does she will no longer 
have the means of carrying on her work ; 
since the State would not only withdraw the 
Church rates, as it would have a right to do, 
but would seize upon the Church property, 
including, perhaps, even the Church edifices 
themselves. 



PART IV. 

Eites emir (SLcxcmonicB of llje dottrel) of 
©nglcmir. 






CHAPTER I. 

ON THE RITES AND CEREMONIES OF THE 
CHURCH OE ENGLAND 

(&. 1. What is meant by Rites and Cere- 
monies ? 

21. By Rites are meant religious obser- 
vances, ordained by competent Authority. 

(El. 2. Why are they called Rites? 

21. Because they are fa*oi, i. e., prescribed 
or ordered. 

(&L. 3. What do you mean by Ceremonies ? 

21. Solemn and sacred observances. 

(El. 4. In the terms Rites and Ceremonies, 
as here used, do you include the two Chris- 
tian Sacraments ? 

21. No. These two Sacraments were " or- 
dained by Christ Himself;" but by Rites 
and Ceremonies, I here mean sacred and 
solemn observances appointed by lawful hu- 
man authority. 

(El. 5. What rules are to be observed by 
those who prescribe Rites and Ceremonies ? 

(261) 





262 RITES AND CEREMONIES OF 

21. That they appoint nothing inconsistent 

/ with the Apostolic injunctions, Let all things 

.. be done decently and in order ; and, Let all 

lUor. xiv. 40. 7 , _ v ,./,. ir»i 

26. things be done to edifying, and for the pro- 

i cor/xTbi. * motion of the glory of Grod. Hence, they 
must take care that the Rites which they 
ordain be reasonable and decorous and, as 
much as may be, in conformity with the an- 
cient practice of the Universal Church ; and 
that Ceremonies, which are commandments of 
Matt. xv. 9. men, be not taught for doctrines, and en- 
joined as necessary to salvation. 

(St. 6. Whence do we ascertain the Rites 
and Ceremonies of the Church of England ? 

21. From the Tables and Rules prefixed to 
the Book of Common Prayer, and from the 
Rubrics of the same. 

(Si. 7. What is meant by a Rubric ? 

21. Properly, a law written in red letters 
(rubris Uteris,) as the titles of the Old Ro- 
inan laws, and the ritual directions in the 
Prayer Book formerly were. 

(St. 8. When were these Rubrics drawn 
up ? 

21. At the times of the promulgation of the 
Book of Common Prayer : in the reign of Ed- 
ward VI. in 1549, 1550, 1552 ; in that of 
Queen Elizabeth in 1560 ; of King James I. 
in 1604 ; and at the Restoration of King 
Charles II. in 1661. 

(Si. 9. By whom were these Rubrics 
framed ? 

21. By Bishops and Presbyters of the 
Church. 



THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 263 

(Si. 10. Do you think yourself bound in Chap. 
conscience to observe them, where competent v 
authority, or the necessity of the case, does 
not exempt you from the observance ? 

21. Certainly. 

(Si. xi. On what authority do the Rubrics 
in the American Church rest ? 

2i. On that of the Church in Conven- 
tion assembled, which ratified the American 
Prayer Book. 

(Si. 12. You have specified the authority 
by which these Rites are ordered : but, in 
addition to them, may not the Ministers and 
members of a particular Church adopt Cere- 
monies from ancient or foreign Churches ; 
such Ceremonies having been appointed by 
those Churches, as edifying and decorous? 

31. No ; no private person, lay or clerical, 
may introduce any thing into a Church, on 
his own authority ; it is not his province, but 
it is exclusively the office of the particular 
Church to which he belongs to decree the 
Ceremonies to be observed by its Members ; 
and whether such additional Ceremonies, as 
you have mentioned, be derived from ancient 
or from modern practice, they are equally 
innovations and usurpations of the authority 
of the Church, and their introduction is 
equally irregular and presumptuous. It is 
not less an act of pride and disobedience in 
an individual to introduce into a Church 
what is not ordered by lawful authority, than 
to despise what is. 



264 OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 

CHAPTER II. 

OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 

Part (01. 1. But may it not be said that — as 

^' / these Rites and Ceremonies are indifferent 

things, and may vary in different Churches, 
and very reasonably and advantageously so, 
and may be changed from time to time in 
the same Church — it is of little importance 
whether we conform to them or no ? 

Ql. If this were so, there would be an end 
of all human authority. Things indifferent 
are properly those concerning which Almighty 
God has not spoken by any law, either for 
them or against : and indifference (aSiayopU) 
is the special character of the legitimate ob- 
jects of human law, as distinguished from 

divine l t'o vofxixbv hixaiov IS, that o 1% apz*j$ 
ovbev Starp&psi, orav 8i duvtai, Siatyepsi, In 

mediis rebus Lex posita est Obedientiae." 
Thus the attitude of the body, and similar 
outward observances in Public Worship, may 
in themselves be matters of no great moment; 
(though even natural Reason tell us that 
certain states of the body are appropriate 
accompaniments and exponents of certain 
affections of the mind, and tend to general 
edification; and for the recommendation of 
certain attitudes in devotion we have the au- 
thority of Scripture Example ; and in the 




OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 265 

Public Worship of a Church discrepancy is 
to be deprecated, and Uniformity is greatly 
to be desired, as tending to promote Unity ; 
and further, though this or that particular 41. e xxu ' 
ceremony may be a matter of little moment, ^ ^.n n 'io°* 
yet that some ceremonies there should be, is E P h - m - 14 - 
essential to the maintenance of Religion ;) 
but when express laws have been duly made 
concerning these things, we are no longer ex. xxn. 28. 
free to do or omit them as we please ; for f eis xxm " 3 ' 
Obedience to constituted Authority is so far 'j™'i l 10 ' 
from being a matter of Indifference, that 1 Tim. i. 4. 
nothing is more destructive to a Community, 2 ism.ii.i6. 
and nothing more displeasing to God, Who \ c or . xiv . 33. 
is the Author, not of confusion but of peace, ™ t j- ^ 
than its absence. Besides this, if these 23. 
things be, as some allege, matters of indif- ex1 ' 
ference, nothing can be more frivolous than 
wranglings concerning them. In a word, the 
fruits of disputing, instead of obeying, are 
contempt of lawful authority, loss of time 
and labour, detriment of peace and charity, 
and the neglect of the " weightier matters 
of the law." 

(31. 2. You say we must obey these laws ; 
and you acknowledge' that these laws are 
human ; do then human laws bind the con- 
science ? 

St. Not as human laws : nothing but the 
law of Grod can do so ; but all human laws, 
which are not contrary to the Divine law, ^ es iv - n » 
can and do bind the conscience indirectly, by 
virtue of the Divine law which commands us 
to obey them. Thus, in the case supposed, 




266 OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 

we are bound to conform to the Rubric, be- 
cause God says in His Word, " Submit your- 
selves to every ordinance of man for the 
Lord's sake." For example, we are not 
bound in conscience to kneel on account of 
any special virtue in . the act itself ; but we 
are bound in conscience to obey the laivful 
authority which enjoins us to do so. . Thus, in 
obeying the Rubrics of the Church, we do in 
fact obey God ; Cum Christo jubente servis 
homini, non homini servis, sed Illi qui jus- 
sit ; and in wilfully and obstinately disobey- 
ing them, we do in fact despise the Word of 
God. 
ex. i. i6 ; 17. (El. 3. It is not meant, I suppose, that we 
Dan. m. is. g^^Q^ ]j e j every human ordinance, with- 
n^r ' 1 ' 45 ' out reference to the nature of the thing com- 
2 cnron. xr. manded ? 

Luke ii. 49. Qt. No ; we are not to obey a human ordi- 

Actsv. 29. nance? ^ ft fo e plainly against the divine 

law ; we are to 'obey Man for the sake of 

God, but we are not to disobey God for the 

sake of man. 

(Q. 4. But these Ceremonies of the Church 
are not enjoined in Holy Scripture ; and does 
not, in the language *of the Church, " Holy 
Scripture contain all things necessary to sal- 
vation?" 

Qi. Yes. Scripture contains all things ne- 
iiatt 2 ^' cessary to salvation; and of these necessary 
xLm. X 2.'| L things one of the very first is obedience to 
LiAe^.ia i aw f u l authority in all things not unlawful, 
John x. 22. that is j in all things not contrary to the gen- 
Acts a. io. er ^ j aws q j ]\r ature anc i ft eas07lj an d to the 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 267 

positive ones of Holy Scripture. And both Chap. 
the precept and example of our blessed Lord, | * 
Who was " obedient to the law for man/' is y ~ m ^ 
conclusive on this point. 

(Si. 5. But if I have a scruple of con- 
science as to the lawfulness of a ceremony, 
ought I to conform to it ? 

21. It is true, certainly, that our con- 
science obliges us, even when it errs; but 
then it does not exempt us from the guilt 
and punishment of error. Hence we must 
take all the care in our power, that our con- 
science may not err, but be rightly instructed 
and informed. And with this view we must 
consider, that lawful authority has pro- 
nounced a public judgment in favour of the 
Ceremony by ordering it : and in Christian 
charity, humility, and discretion, we shall not 
be disposed to doubt that this public judg- 
ment is worth more than our own private 
opinion. Our private conscience must re- 
member that the public conscience is better 
than itself; and it ought, therefore, to en- 
deavour to bring itself into conformity with 
it. Next, we must bear in mind, that the 
thing is established, and for the sake of 
peace ought not to be stirred by private per- 
sons, without urgent necessity; that the 
order, which enjoins the observance, is the 
judgment of the competent authority, to 
which, by God's Word, we owe obedience in 
all things not clearly unlawful, "not only Romxiii *6- 
for wrath but also for - conscience sake;" 
that the command is clear, but our exemption 




268 OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED 

is not so ; (and " in dubiis rebus tutior pars 
est eligenda;") and lastly, that there are 
many things which it may not be expedient 
-for others to command, in which, notwith- 
standing, when they are commanded, it is 
very necessary for us to obey. 

Rom. xiy. 5. <&. 6. But does not St. Paul say, " Let 
every one be fully persuaded in his own 
mind;" and, "whatsoever is not of faith is 
sin ?" 
- Qt. St. Paul is there speaking of indifferent 
matters, that is, of matters not prescribed or 
forbidden by God, and on which the lawful 
public authority had pronounced no judg- 
ment, and in which, therefore, every one was 
at liberty to do what, in his own conscience, 
he thought best ; but where such public au- 
thority has pronounced its judgment, he con- 
demns those who resist it in the following 

i cor. xi. 16. words, "If any man thinks fit (Boxsl) to be 
contentious, we have no such custom, neither 

Rom. xiii. 2. the Churches of God:" and "whosoever re- 
sisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of 

aodr 

6H. 7. But if I give scandal or offence to 

others by compliance, am not I guilty of 

want of charity if I comply, when St. Paul 

i cor. viii. says, " If meat make my brother to offend, 

13, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth ;" 

Eom.xiv.2i. and, "It is good to do nothing whereby thy 

brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made 

weak?" 

21. St. Paul is speaking of things, by ab- 
stinence from which he sacrificed his own ap- 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 269 

petite and not public authority. The former 
is right, but not the latter. And, with re- 
spect to giving scandal, it is not possible for 
us to give greater scandal to the weak, than 
by teaching them disobedience to authority 
by an example of resistance to it ; and this 
too in a matter of Religion. This is, in- 
deed, to make our brother to offend. And 
this is to give scandal, not only to our weak 
brethren, but to the strong, both among our 
fellow-subjects and our governors; for our 
governors are brethren too, and something 
more, and obedience is charity too, and some- 
thing more : and, lastly, it is to offend our 
own consciences, and to disobey God. 

; ©. 8. But may scandal be ever lawfully 
given ? 

2i. No. Scandal can never be lawfully 
given, but it is not seldom unlawfully taken. 
A scandal means a stumbling-block; and 
Christ Himself was a stumbling-block to the 
Jews. The Pharisees were offended (iaxav- 
Sa%La9 V 6av) by His words, yet He did not 
desist from preaching. St. Paul speaks of 
the offence of the Cross, yet it was not to 
cease; and he says, " God forbid that I 
should glory, save in the Cross of our Lord 
Jesus Christ." Offence may be taken, where 
none is given ; and offence not justly taken 
hurteth none but the taker. 

23* 




INDEX. 



Aaron, his ordination, 59, 60. 

Absolution, 85 — 91 ; its nature, 86; 
requisites for, and power of, 86, 
87 ; effect of; 87—90 ; no differ- 
ence on the subject between the 
English and American Churches, 
90 ; difference of practice, 90 ; 
how received in the American 
Church, 91. 

Abuse, takes not away the lawful 
use, 129. 

Advent, the second, 24. 

Advowsons, 255. 

Aerius, his heresy, 67. 

Aidan, of Lindisfern, 104. 115. 

Alban, St, 102. 

Alexandria, Patriarch of, 79, 80. 

Angels of Churches, 68. 84. 

Anicetus, Pope, 111, 112. 

Antioch, Patriarch of, 79, 80. 

Apocryphal Books, 44, 45; how 
read in the English Church, 44, 
45 ; how in the American, 45. 

Apostasy, what it is, 12. 

Apostles, meaning of the term, 60, 
61; their offices, ordinary and 
extraordinary, 71, 72; (see 
Bishojw, Episcopacy, Apostolic 
Succession;) equality of, 169. 
173. 

Apostolic Succession, (see Succes- 
sion,) in the Church of Eng- 
land, 130 — 139 ; in the American 
Church, 211. 

Appeals to Rome, 107 ; restrained, 
118. 

Ark, the, 6. 19. 

Articles, Thirty -nine, their cha- 
racter, 124—127. 

Articuli Cleri, 118. 

Asbury, pretended Bishop, 225. 



Augustine, St., of Canterbury, 102 

—114. 
Authority, its proper place and 

foundation, 264. 

Baptism, Sacrament of admission 
into the Church, 6. 10. 56; its ef- 
fects, 8 ; Baptismal regeneration, 
11; Sacrament of regeneration 
and remission of original sin, 87, 
88. 

Benediction, Episcopal and Sacer- 
dotal, 92, 93 ; what it is, 93 ; of 
things, 95, 96. 

Bertha, Queen, 109. 

Bishops, (see Episcopacy,) mean- 
ing of the term, 62; necessary 
and representatives of the Apos- 
tles, 188. 64—71. 147 ; functions 
of, 15. 71 — 74; the highest or- 
der of ministers,! 62 ; derivation 
and meaning of the word, 62; 
successors and representatives of 
the Apostles, 63—71. 147; why 
not called Apostles, 64; how far 
presbyter and episcopus are com- 
mutable, 65, 66, 67; existed at 
the close of the Apostolic age, 67; 
had Apostolic power, 68; their 
succession authorized by our 
Blessed Lord, 68; universal for 
1500 years, 70, 71 ; only succeed 
to the ordinary functions of the 
Apostles, 71 ; what functions are 
ordinary and what extraordinary, 
71, 72 ; are the only ministers of 
ordination, 72, 73 ; necessity not 
anciently held to authorize an ex- 
ception to that rule, 73 ; neces- 
sity cannot exist where there are 
Bishops, 73 ; chief pastors, 79 ; 

(271) 



272 



INDEX. 



as Diocesans, Metropolitans, and 
Patriarchs, 76. 81 ; not more than 
one in a city, 79 ; benediction 
by, 95 ; centres of unity in their 
respective dioceses, 97; their 
equality, 147 ; not to intrude into 
each other's dioceses, 150; their 
relation to their dioceses and to 
their presbyters, 151; their mis- 
sion within their dioceses, 151 — 
155; election of, 156, 157; con- 
firmation of, 158 ; whence they 
derive their special mission, 158; 
in what cases they may act be- 
yond the limits of their dioceses, 
159—163; the ground of that 
authority, 159 — 1G3 ; power of 
ordination inherent in their office, 
162 ; how the first Bishops of new 
dioceses are consecrated, 164; 
their authority divided into three 
parts, 167; their equality, 167. 
169. 175 ; necessary to the per- 
fection of a Church, 188, 189; 
and to its being, 188, 189; in- 
dispensable to the government 
of a Church, 194; and to the re- 
vision of a Liturgy, 208 ; conse- 
cration of, by three Bishops, 214, 
215 ; consecration by one Bishop, 

214, 215 ; the grace of the Epis- 
copate may be received by one 
who is not a priest, 221. 

Bishops of England, (see Church 
of England,) number of, at the 
Saxon invasion, greater than at 
this day, 104; (see jurisdiction;) 
division of their authority, 184; 
their correspondence on the sub- 
ject of the American Episcopate, 
206 ; their orders in the reign of 
Henry VIII., undisputed, 212; 
mode of selecting them, 255. 259 ; 
abuses, 259 ; compelled by the 
State to consecrate others, 259. 

Bishops of Ireland, their history, 

215, 216. 

Bishops, American, consecration 
of Bishop Seabury, 198; of 



Bishops White and Provost, 207," 
of Bishop Madison, 212; of 
Bishop Claggett, 212; organized 
as a House, 199; their Orders, 
Mission, and Jurisdiction, 210 — 
234 ; trace their Ecclesiastical de- 
scent from the Apostles, through 
both the English and Scottish 
lines, 212; orders thus traced, 
indisputable, 212; orders of the 
English Bishops in Henry VIII., 
the time undisputed, 212 ; Arch- 
bishop Parker's consecration, 212 ; 
his Ecclesiastical descent, 213 ; 
their Ecclesiastical pedigree, 212 
— 219; its validity not affected 
by the Romish objections to the 
Ordinal, 220, 222 ; their mission, 
222. 225 ; in the new territories 
of the United States, 231—234; 
how elected, 235, 236. 

Bishops of the Church of Rome, 
their oath to the Pope, (see Oath,) 
are feudal vassals of the papacy, 
and peers of the Pope's creation, 
176, 177; in America, 224; con- 
secration of, by one Bishop, 214; 
in America, 224. 

Boniface, III., Pope, 115. 138; 
VIII., 138. 

British Church, 102. 108. 

Bulls Papal, Caena Domini, 140. 

Bulls of Excommunication, 139. 

Caerleon, Bishop of, 103. 111. 

Canon Law, (see Councils, Decre- 
tals,) statement of, with respect 
to the papal power, 207. 

Canon of 1571, concerning preach- 
ers, 127, 128. 

Canons of 1603, their regard for 
antiquity, 125; their rules for 
preachers, 127, 128. 

Canon of Scripture, 39 — 41. 

Canonical Books, 39 — 41. 

Canterbury, the Patriarchal See 
of England, 114. 

Catalogues of Church governors, 
70. 



INDEX. 



273 



Catechising, 47. 

Cathedral Church, the Parish 

Church of the whole Diocese, 98. 
Catholic, 4, 5. 
Catholic Communion, what, 142, 

143. 
Catholics, who, 5. 
Ceremonies, (see Bites,) English 

Prayer Book upon, 262. 
Charity, Truth the greatest, 75. 
Christ, (see Jesus Christ.) 
Church, etymology and meaning 

of the word, 1. 104; names for, 

1, 2; more than an assembly, 1, 

2. 129; a visible society, 2; of 
whom composed, 2 ; designations 
of the Church, 2 ; unity of the 
Church, 2, 3, 20 ; holiness, 3, 4. 
6 ; Catholicity, 4 ; Apostolicity, 5, 
mode of admission into, 5; its 
mixed condition, 7; types of, 6, 
7 ; parables concerning, 6, 7 ; vi- 
sible and militant, 6. 8. 10. 14; 
why so called, 8 ; invisible, 9 ; 
visible and invisible, not two 
Churches, 9 ; what promises be- 
long to the invisible Church, 10; 
what to the visible, 10; duties 
belong to the visible Church, 10 ; 
duty of Christians to belong to 
the visible Church, 9. 18; mode 
of admission, 10. 12; seperation 
from visible Church, 10. 13 ; sepa- 
ration from visible Church not 
final, 13 ; separation from the in- 
visible Church, 14 ; visible Church 
has no visible head, 14, 15, 53; 
government of the Church, 15 ; 
Church founded by Jesus Christ, 
16 ; her dignity and glory, 16, et 
seq. ; her glorious titles, 16 ; re- 
presented by marriage ; true re- 
ligion the characteristic of the 
Church, 17 ; salvation only in the 
Church, 18, 19. 21; only one 
Church, 20; prefigured by Eve, 
20; Church before the Incarna- 
tion, 22 ; Catholic Church cannot 
fail, 23 ; but a particular Church, 



even a patriarchal Church, may, 
27 ; invisible Church cannot err, 
24;' visible Church waxes and 
wanes, 24; particular Churches 
may err, 24; so may councils, 
24 ; Church at large, what it is, 
27; how it ratifies the acts of 
Councils, 27; keeper and wit- 

_ ness of Holy Writ, 39 ; interpreter 
of Holy Scripture, 45. 56; errors 
in the Church, 24. 54; defini- 
tion of the Church, 17, 18 ; her 
constitution, 2. 3. 5. 15; one or 
united, 2 ; how her unity is main- 
tained, 2; (see Unity;) notes of 
the Church, 8, 9 ; invisible, 9 ; 
not two Churches, 9 ; Church the 
Body and Spouse of Christ, 16. 
19, 20 ; on errors in the Church, 
23—37. 54; Catholic Churclj can- 
not fail, 23 ; discipline, (see Keys,) 
a note of the Church, 81; the 
depository of grace and the house 
of discipline, 89 ; has a right to 
regulate ceremonies, 91 ; likened 
to a sea, 101. 190 ; communion 
and unity, 95. 142—144. 178, 
179; rational what, 188; imper- 
fection of, 188 ; how it can exist 
in an imperfect state, 188 ; can- 
not consist of laymen only, 189 ; 
difference between a Church and 
an assembly, 189, 190; relations 
of Church and State, 237—249 ; 
same in England, 249 — 260 ; its 
object, 240 ; not the same society 
with the State, 238 ; why, 238 
— 242 ; cannot enter into alliance 
with the State, 242 ; why, 242— 
246; concurrent jurisdiction with 
the State, 246. 

Church, .American, her doctrine 
of absolution, 90 ; her practice, 
90, 91 ; has a right to regulate 
her own practice, 91 ; her origin 
and early history, 180, 181 ; her 
origin, 180 ; why not the most 
numerous denomination in the 
United States, 180—183; how 



274 



INDEX. 



introduced into New England, 
183,* formerly established in 
Maryland and Virginia, 183 ; how 
supplied with Clergy before the 
American Revolution, 183; how 
governed, 185; former authority 
of the Bishops of London, 185 ; 
the basis of that authority, 187 ; 
its termination, 187; effects of 
the American Revolution on the 
Ecclesiastical position of the 
Church, 186 ; condition of the 
little national Churches, to which 
that event gave rise, 188; their 
want of organization, 190 ; bound 
by the Ecclesiastical Law of the 
English Church, 190—192; his- 
tory of her organization, 192 — 
211 ; two principles in her go- 
vernment, Divine and human, 
193 ; effect of the Divine prin- 
ciple on her organization, 195 ; 
her condition before the forma- 
tion of the present government, 
195 ; her internal bonds of union 
at that time, 196 ; mode in which 
the diocesan organization was 
developed, 196 ; her government 
depeloped from what remained 
of the old government, 197; or- 
ganization of diocesan Conven- 
tions, 196. 199 ; principles of that 
organization, 199 ; necessity for 
a General Convention, 200 ; its 
development, 201 — 211 j fully or- 
ganized in 1789; 209; but not 
upon proper principles, until 1808, 
209; her internal constitution, 
234. 237; founded on two great 
principles, 234; independent of 
the State, 248 ; her relations with 
the State, 237, 238 ; her relations 
with the State particularly, 249, 
250. 
Church of England, her Catho- 
licity, 101, 102 ; her origin, 102, 
103 ; had Bishops before Augus- 
tine, 101, 102. 104; independent 
of Rome before Augustine, 104 — i 



109; older than that of Rome, 
103 ; did not receive Christianity 
from Rome, 104; mission of Au- 
gustine, 108, 109; her Bishops in 
unbroken succession from the 
time of the Apostles, 102, et seq. ; 
independent of Rome, 102 — 120; 
a true branch of the Catholic 
Church, 101, et seq.; 141—144; 
her Reformation restorative, 121 
—129 ; not a new Church, 120 ; 
under popery was a Church, 
though an erring one, 121 ; her 
primitive character, 120, 121 ; her 
continuity, 122; her regard for 
antiquity, 120 — 129 ; her scrip- 
tural character, 125, 126. 128. 
136 ; her respect for authority, 
126; not bound to reject every 
thing which she has in common 
with Rome, 128 ; how far she 
admits private judgment, 126; 
her visibility from the Apostolic 
ages, 119-122. 135, 136 ; the Apos- 
tolic succession of her Bishops, 
130 — 135 ; why she recognises 
Roman Catholic orders, 133. 142 ; 
her conduct towards the reformed 
communions, 133 ; her priesthood 
and sacrifice, 134, 135 ; her ordi- 
nation, 130 — 135 ; did not sepa- 
rate herself from the Church of 
Rome, 135—141. 180; her Catho- 
licity acknowledged by Roman- 
ists themselves, 136 ; did not se- 
parate from the Catholic Church, 
141 ; admits the Baptism and the 
Holy Orders of the Church of 
Rome, 203 ; communicates in faith 
and prayers with the whole world, 
141 ; communicates with the Ca- 
tholic Church from the begin- 
ning, 143 ; not heretical nor schis- 
matical, 225, 226; her relations 
with the State, 249—261 ; history 
of her subjection to the State, 
251 ; royal supremacy, 251 — 258 ; 
her doctrine, respect to it, 254; 
how her Glergy are supported, 



INDEX. 



275 



255 ; church rates, 254 ; has been 
deprived of much of her proper- 
ty, 267; royal supremacy has 
passed into the hands of Parlia- 
ment, 258; how it is exercised, 
258 ; what the Church gets by the 
royal supremacy, 258; why she 
does not throw it off, 260.* 

Church of Rome, {see Rome.) 

Churches, who is their real owner, 
131; their consecration, 132. 

Churches, suburbicarian, {see Sa- 
burbicarian.) 

Church Rates, 255. 

Claggett, Bishop, his consecra- 
tion, 212. 

Clergy, their authority in matters 
of doctrine, 148 — 150 ; origin of 
the name, 57 ; necessity of, 57 — 
61. 188—190; in what sense all 
Christians are priests, 57; no man 
may invade their office, 59 ; law- 
ful call, 59 ; the necessity of ordi- 
nation and mission, 59, 60 ; who 
may send them, 60 ; must have 
authority from Christ, 60, 61 ; by 
way of ordination, 61 ; grace re- 
ceived by them at ordination, 61. 
130; three orders, 62, 63. 130. 
145 ; these have existed from the 
time of the Apostles, 63 ; how far 
Presbyter and Episcopus are con- 
vertible terms, 65, 66; Bishops, 
the only ministers of ordination, 
72 ; in England, 103 ; number of 
nonconforming, in 1559, 133; 
(see Priest , Ministry , Orders;) 
how they are to be transferred 
from one diocese to another, 151 ; 
necessary to the being of a Church, 
188 — 190; how maintained in 
England, 254. 

Clergy, American, whence sup- 
plied before the Revolution, 183; 
how maintained, 183; how ap- 
pointed, 184 ; how governed, 184 ; 
their licences, 184; how trans- 
ferred from one diooese to an- 



other, 151 ; their orders, mission, 
and jurisdiction, 212. 

Coke, pretended Bishop. 225. 

Common Prayer, 96 ; set forms of, 
99 ; Books of, Paul IY. and Pius 
IV. offered to confirm, 124; 
adoption of the American, 211; 
ratification of, 263. 

Communion of Churches, {see Unity.) 

Communion, Holy, remission of sins 
in the, 89, 90. 

Compton, Bishop, his Ecclesiastical 
pedigree, 215 ; the channel of suc- 
cession to the English, Scottish, 
and American Bishops, 216. 

Confirmation, 95; benediction in, 
95. 

Conscience, 267, 268. 

Constantinople, Patriarch of, 30. 

Constitution of Clarendon, 119. 

Conventions, diocesan, 197; their 
organization, 196 — 199 ; princi- 
ples on which organized, 199; 
their constitution, 236. 

Convention, General, reasons of 
the necessity for one, 199; his- 
tory of its development, 200 — 
210; principles upon which the 
first met, 202 ; its meeting and 
composition, 203 ; its business, 
203 ; what it did in the matter 
of the Episcopate, 203; of the 
Prayer Book, 204; of a constitu- 
tion, 204; convention of, 1786, 
205 ; its second meeting at Wil- 
mington, 205 ; the doings of that 
meeting, 205 ; of 1789, 208 ; forms 
a constitution, 209; organizes a 
Hduse of Bishops, 209 ; becomes 
the first constitutional General 
Convention, 209, 210 ; its action 
in that capacity, 210 ; its constitu- 
tion, 234—237 ; its powers, 237. 

Convocation, 258. 

Councils, use of, 15. 24. 54 ; may 
err, 24; what they are, 26 ; (Ecu- 
menical council, what, 26; pro- 
vincial councils, 26 ; convocation, 
26; General Convention, 26; 



276 



INDEX. 



110. 112. 



General Councils, how many, 28, 
29; what is meant by a coun- 
cil's being generally received, 29 ; 
names of the General Councils, 
29 ; pretended General Councils, 
31, 32 ; acts of the Council of 
Nice, 32 ; of the Council of Ephe- 
sus, 32 ; of the first Council of 
Constantinople, 32; of the Council 
of Chalcedon, 33 ; authority of 
Councils, 24. 53. 55; reverence 
of Gregory the Great for the first 
four, 110. 

Council of Aries, 103. 107. 

Chalcedon, 28. 34. 123. 

Constantinople, 28. 34. 

123. 

-Ephesus, 28. 34. 109, 

-Nice, 32. 106. 120. 123. 
— Sardinia, 103. 107. 

Trent, -not a general 

council, its illegality, 124, 125; 
its creed, 124. 126; its anathemas, 
139. 

Council, Pseudo, General, 29 — 32. 

of Trullo, 110. 

Covenant, Solemn league, and ab- 
juration of, 117. 

Cyprus, case of the Church in, 
107—111. 

David's, St., Bishops of, 106. 

Deacons, third order of the minis- 
try, 62; their name and office, 
62; derivation and meaning of 
the word, 63 ; their functions, 
145 ; may not officiate beyond 
their proper dioceses, 151. 

Decretals of Dionysius Exiguus, 
Isidorus, and Gratian, 137; of 
others, 138. 

Dinoth, Abbot of Bangor, 106. 

Diocese, meaning of the word, 
78; how boundaries of, deter- 
mined, 159; how formed, 164, 
165. 

Diocesan Episcopacy, 76-81. 149. 

Discipline of the Church, 12, 13. 



81 — 85 ; a note of the Church, 
81; its institution and aims, and 
obligation, 81 — 91. 

Dissenters, 35 — 3-8. 

Distribution of Ecclesiastical pow- 
er, 76. 

Donatists, 133. 142. 144. 232. 

E aster> time of keeping, 104. 
Ecclesia, its meaning, 2; of 
Athens, 2. 

permixta (see Church.) 

in Episcopi, the maxim 



illustrated, 103, (see Succession.) 

Ecclesiastical Books of Scrip- 
ture, 44. 

Ecclesiastical Law of England 
binding on the American Church, 
191. 

Elizabeth, Queen, excommuni- 
cated by the Pope, 137. 140 ; re- 
fused the title of head of the 
Church, 153 ; her injunctions, 
153. 

Empire, Roman, its divisions, how 
preparatory to the polity of the 
Church, 76—80. 

Episcopacy, (see Bishops,) Divine 
institution of, 63 — 71 ; all heretics 
and schismatics anciently agreed 
about it, 70 ; evidence of its di- 
vine appointment and universal- 
ity, 74, 75 ; Lutheran, Arminian, 
and Calvinistic testimonies in fa- 
vour of, 75 ; necessary to the per- 
fection of a Church, 188; in- 
dispensable to its government, 
195. 

Episcopacy, Diocesan, 76 — 81. 

Episcopus, 65. 68. 

Eve, a figure of the Church, 20. 

Evidence, internal and external of 
Scripture, 41. 

Evil men in the Church, 6. 9. 

Expositors of Scripture, 48—53. 

Fathers of the Church, authority 

of, 17. 52. 
Fideles, 57. 62. 



INDEX. 



277 



General Councils, (see Councils.) 

General Convention, (see Conven- 
tion, General.) 

Governments, how originated, 193, 
194; two elements in, 194; dif- 
ference between civil and Eccle- 
siastical, 194. 

Grace, gratis datur, 111. 

Gregory I., Pope, 101. 114; his 
declaration irreconcilable with 
later claims of the papacy, 139. 
174, 175. 177. 

Gregory VII.,. Pope, 116; canon- 
ized and lauded by the Church 
of Rome for deposing Henry IV., 
177. 

Head of the Church, no visible, 
earthly, 14 ; (see Jesus Christ.) 

Heathen, condition of, 22; duty 
of Christians towards them, 22. 

Henry VIIL, his acts in Ecclesi- 
astical matters, 119; excommuni- 
cated by the Pope, 140 ; how he 
made himself head of the Church, 
252. 

Heresy, what it is, 13. 34; all error 
not heresy, 34 ; in what the sin 
consists, 34 ; language of Scrip- 
ture, 34; difference between he- 
resy and schism, 35 ; heretics not 
in the visible Church, 13. 37; in 
what sense this is true, 13. 37 ; 
duties of Churchmen towards he- 
retics, 37. 

Heretics, how far in the visible 
Church, 13. 37 ; duties towards, 
37; formerly agreed with the 
Church in one point, that of 
Episcopacy, 70. 

Hildebrand, (see Gregory VII.) 

Holiness op the Church, 6,7. 18. 

Holy Ghost, His office in ordina- 
tion, 60 ; the Author of Episco- 
pacy, 71. 

Homilies, 125. 

Human Laws, 265 ; how they bind 
the conscience, 260. 265. 267. 

Hitman Teaching, 48 — 51. 



24 



Indifferent things, 264. 
Intercession, 91—98; what it is, 

92. 
Interpretation, (see Scripture.) 
Ischyras, case of, 72. 

Jeroboam, an example of schism 
and heresy, 36. 

Jerusalem, Church of, the mother 
of all Churches, 109. 

Jesus Christ, the only Head of 
the Church, 14; faith in Him the 
distinguishing characteristic of 
the Church, 18; the object of the 
faith of the Church both before 
and after His coming, 21; the 
Church His House, 16 ; His Body, 
9. 16. 19. 21; His Spouse, 9. 14. 
19 ; He is the second Adam, 20 ; 
the great Apostle, 59. 60; and 
founder of the Apostolic and 
Episcopal office, 68; how he go- 
verns the world, 15, 16; His office 
in absolution, 86; in interces- 
sion, 93 ; in benediction, 95 ; His 
commission to St. Peter, and in 
him to all the Apostles, 170 — 
173 ; never instituted a supreme 
visible head of the Church, 175; 
is the Rock on which the Church 
is built, 170, 171. 

Jews, the librarii of the Christians, 
40. 

John the Baptist, his Baptism, 
133, 134. 

Judas, Baptism by, 131. 138. 

Judge, no one living infallible, in 
controversial causes, 53. 

Jurisdiction, division of, 75 ; ori- 
gin and meaning of the word, 
165; its various significations, 
165 ; inconvenience arising from 
the manner in which *it is used, 
155 ; meaning as contradistin- 
guished from mission, 165; 
whence that sort of jurisdiction 
is derived, 167 ; by whom exer- 
cised during the vacancy of a 
see, 167. 



278 



INDEX. 



Jus Cyprium of the Church of 
England, 73. 

Keys, power of, 82 — 84; origin of 
the name, 82 ; given to all pres- 
byters, 82; why keys are em- 
blems of authority, 83 ; admit to, 
and exclude from the kingdom 
of heaven, 83 ; how this is done, 
83; for what objects, 83; cha- 
racter of Church censures, 83 ; 
duty of ministers,. 84; readmission 
into the Church, 84. 

Kingdom of Heaven, what it is, 
83 ; admission into, exclusion 
from, and readmission into, 83, 
84. 

Korah and his company, examples 
of schism, 36, 37. 

Ktjriakos, 1. 

Laity, 48 ; (see Fideles.) 

Laying on of Hands, 95 ; its sig- 
nification, 95; in confirmation, 
absolution, and ordination, 95. 

Lazarus, 86, 87, 88 ; sister of, 42. 

Liters formats, 79. 

Liturgy, (see Prayer, Common 
Prayer.) 

Liudhard, Bishop, 108. 

London, Bishop of, 103 ; his autho- 
rity in the colonies, 184; its 
bases, 187; its termination, 187. 

Madison, Bishop, his consecration, 
212. 

Ma£y, St., the Virgin at Cana, 44. 

Maryland, history of the Church 
in, 1S3. 

Masora, the, 40. 

Matthias, St., 68, 69. 

Methodists, 224, 225. 

Metropolitans, (see Bishops.) 

Ministers, unworthiness of, hin- 
ders not the effect of the ordi- 
nances which they minister, 134, 
135. 

Ministry, Lawful, what consti- 
tutes a, 56 — 72; (see Clergy, 



Priest, Ordination,) three orders, 
62 — 64; these have existed from 
the time of the Apostles, 63. 

Mission, division of, 76. 149 ; quali- 
fication for the lawful adminis- 
tration of the Holy Sacraments, 
144; what it is, 147; what will 
prevent it from being received in 
ordination, 148; how it may be 
lost, 148 ; local impediments to 
it, 148 ; the Apostles possessed it 
universally and equally, 149 ; 
sometimes called jurisdiction, 
144. 164; distinguished from ju- 
risdiction, 164; of parish priests, 
151 — 155 ; whence it is derived, 
152 ; not exclusive of the Bishop 
of the diocese, 154; may be pos- 
sessed in three modes, 155 ; dis- 
tinction between general and. spe- 
cial illustrated, 155; how general 
mission is conferred, 156; why 
not given in an unlawful ordina- 
tion, 161; special, how given, 
157; whence derived, 158; God 
the ultimate source of all mission, 
159; of English Bishops, 151; of 
American Bishops, 211; in new 
dioceses, 165; of American 
Bishops, 223 ; in the new terri- 
tories of the United States, 232. 

Nadab and Abihu, examples of 
heresy, 36. 

Necessity may excuse a viola- 
tion of law, but cannot give power, 
163. 

Nonjurors, 216. 

Oath, qualification of a good, 116. 

Oath of Roman Catholic Bishops 
to the Pope, 116 — 118 ; persequi 
Jicereticos, 140 ; obligation of vas- 
salage, 177 ; inconsistent with 
civil allegiance, 177. 

Obedience, its obligation, 264; its 
nature and extent, 265; required 
by Scripture, 266. 

Orders, a necessary qualification 
to administer the Holy Sacra- 



INDEX. 



279 



ments, 144; indelible, 144 ; what 
they are, 144; not to be reite- 
rated, 144 ; can only be conferred 
by Bishops, 72. 

Orders, of the American Clergy, 
140 ; derived from both the Eng- 
lish and Scottish lines, 212 j and 
through them from the Irish and 
Italian lines, 212 ; their validity 
proved, 212. 

Orders, The- Three, of Christian 
ministers, (see Ministry, Clergy, 
Bishops, Priests, Deacons,) 62, 
63. 130. 145. 

Ordinal, English, 130, 131; (see 
Church of England,) its validity 
proved, 220; Romish objections, 
220; no mention of the Episcopal 
office, 220 ; no mention of the 
priestly office, 220; compared 
with Roman Pontifical, 220 ; no 
power to offer sacrifice, 221 ; its 
matter and form of ordination, 
221. 

Ordination, requisites to a lawful 
one, 57 — 62. 72 ; the office of the 
Holy Ghost in, 63 ; grace of or- 
dination, 63. Ill ; Bishops the 
only ministers of, 72 ; presbyte- 
rial not authorized even by 
necessity, 72; no necessity for 
presbyterial ordinations where 
Bishops exist, 73; judgment of 
the Churches in England and 
America, upon presbyterial ordi- 
nation, 75. 131 ; (see Clergy and 
Priests,) distinction between valid 
and lawful, 155; matters and 
form, 221 ; per soltum, 221—223. 

Original Sin, punishment of, re- 
mitted in Baptism, 88. 

Pallium, its origin, use, and abuse, 
115. 177. 

Parables, Scripture, concerning 
the Church, 7—10. 

Parker, Archbishop, his consecra- 
tion, 131. 160. 212; not neces- 
sary to the validity of Anglican 



orders, 214; his Ecclesiastical 
pedigree, 214. 

Parishes, 78. 

Patriarchal Dispensation, priest- 
hood of, 92. 

Patriarchs, (see Bishops.) 

Patriarchate of England, (see 
Canterbury. 

Patriarchates, modification and 
transfer of precedence of, 81; by 
the Ephesine, 110—114. 

Paul, St., his primacy, 169. 

Peter, St., his primacy, faith, con- 
fession, keys, pastoral office, 82. 
169—179; the Romish claim of 
the supremacy of the Pope as 
derived from him, 226—232. 

Petra and Petrus, 82. 171. 

Picts and Scots, Church among, 
104. 

Pius IV., 136 ; his creed, 124. 

Pius V., his bull against Queen Eli- 
zabeth, 137. 140. 

PONTIFICALE ROMANUM, 219. 

Pope of Rome, not the head of 
the Church, 14. 169—179; his 
claim to be such, 15 ; unfounded, 
53 ; his claim to be an infalli- 
ble judge in controverted causes, 
53; ancient precedence and ex- 
tent of his patriarchate, 79 ; had 
no jurisdiction in England before 
Augustine, 104 — 108 ; acquired 
no jurisdiction, by the conver- 
sion of the Saxons, 111; could 
not, canonically, extend the 
bounds of his patriarchate, 109 ; 
has no jurisdiction in England, 
104—119. 168—179; has for- 
feited his patriarchate, 114. 117; 
oath imposed by him upon Eccle- 
siastics, 116. 139; protests against 
his usurpations in England, 117 ; 
encroachments of, 117 ; examples 
of resistance to them, 117. 174; 
his secular claims, 137. 177 ; form 
of his coronation, 117 ; his spi- 
ritual claims, 138 ; his treatment 
of councils and Bishops, 138 ; 



280 



INDEX. 



evils of his dominion, 176; the 
great cause of divided Christi- 
anity, 178; his claims destructive 
of Church unity, 178 ; errors and 
heresies of various Popes, 178; 
his claim to be the source of mis- 
sion and jurisdiction, 226; his 
struggle with the temporal sove- 
reigns, 250. 

Postures, 265. 

Power of the Keys, (see Keys.) 

Practice, the best interpreter of 
laws, 70. 

Prayer, Public, (see Common 
Prayer,) set forms of, 98 ; ad- 
vantages of, 98. 

Prayer Book, American, its 
adoption, 211. 

Preaching, 47; canons of the 
Church of England concerning, 
127. 

Private Judgment, 175. 

Presbyters, (see Priest and 
Bishop.) 

Priest, (see Clergy,) in what sense 
all Christians are priests, 58 ; dif- 
ference between laity and Clergy 
notwithstanding, 57, 58; mean- 
ing of the term, 62 ; second order 
of the ministry, 61 ; derivation 
and meaning of the word, 62 ; 
how far the words Presbyter and 
Episcopus are commutable, 65, 
66; presbyters cannot ordain, 72; 
no ancient authority for their or- 
daining, even in case of "inevi- 
table necessity/' 72 ; their power 
in absolution, (see Absolution,) in 
intercession and benediction, (see 
Intercession,) priesthood of the 
patriarchal dispensation, 92 ; 
Christian priesthood, 134; priests 
as Angeli Ecclesiaz, 96 ; priest- 
hood in the Church of England, 
134; his functions, 146; how far 
a successor of the Apostles, 147 ; 
their relation to their dioceses, 
151 ; to their Bishops, 139 — 151 ; 
have no right to officiate beyond 



their proper dioceses, 151 ; mis- 
sion and relation to the Bishop 
with respect to it, 152 — 155. 

Priesthood, necessity of, 57 — 59, 
(seePriest, Clergy,) of the patri- 
archal dispensation, 92 ; Chris- 
tian, 139 ; in the Church of Eng- 
land, 139. 

Private Judgment, defined, 127. 

Protestantism, 123. 

Provinces of the Church, 177. 179. 

Provost, Bishop, consecration of, 
207. 

Puritans, their character, 182; 
their conduct, 237. 

QUARTODECIMANI, 112. 

Eahab, house of, 18. 

Recusancy, Bomish, in England, 
dateof its origin, 136. 

Reformation in England, not in- 
novating but restorative, 119 — 
129. 

Reformations in the Church, how 
to be made, 56. 121. 

Regalia Sancti Petri, 116. 

Regeneration, 11. 88. 

Rites and Ceremonies, origin of 
the terms, 261 ; their nature and 
obligation, 261—263; duty of 
obedience to, 261. 

Repentance, 87. 

Rochester, 113. 

Rome, Bishop of, (see Pope.) 

-, Church of, not the Catholic 



Church, 5; when founded, 104; 
a true Church, 122, 123 ; in what 
sense, 123, 124 ; contrasted with 
the Church of England, 124, 125 ; 
its novel unscriptural, and anti- 
scriptural dogmas and practices, 
138, 139 ; violent obtrusion of 
them, 135. 138 — 141 ; anathemas, 
141 ; its schism, 141 ; reiterates 
ordination and baptism, 142 — 
169 ; (Bishops of, see Oath and 
Pope}) schismatical, 233, 234. 
Rome, Patriarch of, (see Pope.) 



INDEX. 



281 



Rubrics, history and authority of, 

262, 263. 
Rule of Faith, 51. 53. 

Sacraments, the, from Christ on 
the cross, 20 ; necessity of, 56, 57; 
nature of, 56, 57 ; by whom ad- 
ministered, 57, 58 ; necessity of 
due administration of, 56 — 61; 
not mere rites, 261. 

Sacrifice, the Christian, 134. 

Samaritan Woman, 42. 

Scandal, 268 ; on giving and taking, 
268. 

Schism, what it is, 13. 35; differ- 
ence between heresy and schism, 
35 ; withdrawing from communion 
with one's own Bishop or pastor, 
schism, 36 ; civil government can- 
not authorize, 36 ; schismatics 
not in the visible Church, 13, 37; 
in what sense this is true, 13, 37; 
duties of churchmen towards 
schismatics, 38. 

Schismatics, how far they are in 
the visible Church, 13. 38 ; duties 
towards them, 38 ; formerly all 
agreed in one point, that of Epis- 
copacy, 70. 

Scotch Church, 104. 129. 

Scribes and Pharisees, why, and 
how far to be heard, 50. 121. 

Scriptures, Holy, (see Canonical 
Books, Ecclesiastical and Apo- 
cryphal Books,) committed to the 
keeping of the Church, 39; its 
integrity, 40, 41 ; genuineness, 41 ; 
authority and inspiration, 41, 42 ; 
evidence of, internal and exter- 
nal, 42 ; translations of, inferior to 
the original, 44; languages of, 
45. 

Scripture, custody and interpre- 
tation of, 39 — 55. 

sufficiency of, 53, 54. 

124. 126, 127. 

Scripture, versions of, 45. 

Seabury, Bishop, his election and 



consecration, 198 ; his letters of 
consecration, 198. 

Standing Committees, 199. 

Statesmen, duties of, 58. 

State, relations with the Church, 
236; in England, 250; not the 
same society with the Church, 
237; why, 237—241 ; alliance of 
State and Church, 241—245 ; 
cannot aid the Church in her 
duties, 242 ; objections to an alli- 
ance between Church and State, 
242; consequences of such alli- 
ances, 242 ; bound to recognise 
the true Church, 244; how ex- 
cused from so doing, 245; its 
concurrent jurisdiction with the 
Church, 247 ; actual relations 
with the American Church, 247- 
250. 

Suburbicarian Churches, 106. 

Succession, Apostolic, 130 — 135; 
has never been interrupted, 130 ; 
in the English, Scottish, and Ame- 
rican Churches, 214 — 219 ; na- 
ture ot the evidence in favour of 
the ancient succession, 217, 218. 

Suffragan Bishops, 79. 

Supremacy, Royal, 252 — 259 ; doc- 
trine of the Church of England, 
respecting, 253; how abused, 
259. 

Tables of the Law in the ark, 38. 
Tares and Wheat, 8. 
Tithes, 253. 

Trent, Council of, (see Councils.) 
Truth, the greatest charity, 75. 

Unity of the Church, in what it 
consists, and how it is to be 
maintained, 2. 15. 98. 141. 278 ; 
promoted by public Common 
Prayer, 98; Bishops the centres 
of unity, 99 ; Prayer for Unity, 
97, (see Church.) 

Universal Bishop, (see Church 
and Pope.) 

Universities of England, their 



282 



INDEX. 



part in the Reformation, 120 ; 

subscription at, 130. 
Urban VIII., Pope, 140. 
Victor, Pope, 112. 
Virginia, history of Church in, 183. 
Visible Head of the Church, none, 

14, 15. 53. 

Wesley, 224, 225. 



White, Bishop, his consecration, 

207. 
Wilfrid, 118. 
Wolsey, Cardinal, 252. 
Word op God, (see Scriptures.) 

York, 103. 

Zizania, 8. 



h b^ 



82 it 








Am 





v. * • « i • ^ 






v »i^J 



«# 






Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process ^ 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: March 2006 



yjj£l*°* ^*\°J^%^ PreservationTechnologies 

\r5B^^ * V V- S ^§mb£ A W ° RLD LEADER ' N PAPER PRE SERV?T.ON 

• J^ggvfoaQb "* O 1> ^Ww^Wfc^ " 1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 



~0 ^ 



Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



I 











«fe<F 



,u 



• »■«' 













" \* .. * •••- * v 




■♦♦ :; 
















.<<2* 



%' AT 



C* 



